Loading...
1985.08.14_PB_Minutes_Regular,,O, Alv9D , 8iy TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA • PLANNING BOARD REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 14, 1985 9:30 A.M. The regular meeting of the Planning Board, Town of Highland Beach, Florida, was called to order at 9:30 A.M. by Chairman Irving S. Saunders. Present at this meeting were Chairman I. S. Saunders, Vice Chairman D. R. Rome, M. A. Waldman, J. E. Ward, alternate A. Leng and Alternate C. H. Bartlett. Also present were Town Attorney Richard Barkin, Building Official Bruce Sutherland, Recording Secretary Anne Kowals, Attorney Jeffrey Hirsch, Lorenz Schmidt and members of the general public. The minutes of the regular meeting of July 10, 1985, the public hearing of July 24, 1985, and the special meeting of August 7, 1985, were ac- cepted and approved as submitted. The Coastal Technology Corporation Report, prepared by R. Harvey Sasso, •P.E., dated August 13, 1985, which was received and distributed just prior to this meeting was read by the members. Mr. Lorenz Schmidt, representing Teron International, Inc., owners of Royal Highlands, identified himself and addressed the Planning Board Members. When Mrs. Rome said she would like the Town Manager present at this meeting, Town Attorney Barkin informed the members that Mr. Williams was attending a meeting unrelated to Royal Highlands and was unable to be at this meeting. Chairman Saunders requested that Building Official Bruce Sutherland bring in the original plans and the 'Mizner' plans submitted by Royal Highlands last April. Vice Chairman Rome said that at last week's meeting, Mr. Schmidt was asked to return to this meeting to review and talk about the 'Mizner' plans for 120 units, submitted in April. The members will be glad to review any plans that Mr. Schmidt would like the Planning Board to review, continued Mrs. Rome. Mr. Schmidt said two alternative plans for 156 units were submitted by Teron on August 7, 1985, one plan using two towers - the other plan using the 'Mizner' approach. PLANNING BOARD • Regular Meeting August 14, 1985 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Schmidt said Teron is not prepared to reduce the density to 128/120 units --we will not build less than 156 units. After a brief recess, Chairman Saunders reconvened the meeting at 10:05 A.M. at which time Mr. Schmidt went over the processes. The first proposal was the original concept in which Teron proposed 128 units (four buildings with an aperture of 140/150') was submitted in February/March, said Mr. Schmidt. The Planning Board was concerned that the aperture was insufficient as the court order originally defined an aperture of 292'. The next scheme submitted in April for 120 units with an aperture of about 200' was unacceptable to the Planning Board. Mr. Schmidt said, at this point, the entire discussion moved from a discussion of aesthe- tics and aperture to a dialogue between Mr. Blosser and he on the bene- fits of 90 units. Subsequest to that, said Mr. Schmidt, we have been involved in a court • action and we have come back to the Planning Board. At last week's meeting, Teron suggested there were three schemes available for review by the Planning Board. 1. Scheme A - the original set of permitted plans - the two fifteen story towers which had the gazebo roofs on the recreation deck. This project will be discussed in front of the judge to ascertain if we are entitled to a building permit for 156 units (thirteen stories over two stories of garage). 2. Scheme B - the two tower concept is exactly within the para- meters of the court order settlement stipulation. There are a total of 156 units and each unit has two balconies. Each tower is 240' long, 60' deep and fifteen stories high, in- cluding two levels of parking running from one end of the North building through to the other end of the South build- ing with the recreation structures in the center and on the roof of the second level parking. Space between the two towers is 292'. 3. Scheme C - is a 156 unit concept that was put into a 'Mizner' elevation where the volumn was compressed and moves from six stories up to thirteen stories with a center aperture of 176'. Each building is 320' long and 60' deep. Scheme C does not comply with the court order. PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting • August 14, 1985 Page 3 of 6 Vice Chairman Rome said that since Mr. Schmidt stated he wants the 156 units as per the stipulation of the court settlement, the Planning Board should advise the Town Attorney that we should go back to the judge with our findings and feelings. If the judge does not agree with our engi- neers, continued Mrs. Rome, then I think that Mr. Schmidt and the Plan- ning Board should go along with the first plan that was permitted by the Town. When questioned about a MOTION regarding this matter, Attorney Barkin said that for the sake of the record, a MOTION indicating that the Planning Board Members are not in agreement with any of the alterna- tives proposed would be appropriate. Mrs. Rome made the MOTION that the Planning Board, through our attorney, convey to the judge that we have been industriously working on alterna- tive plans, as well as the original plans; that we as a Planning Board, Town of Highland Beach, have grave concerns about several issues. 1. The two story parking garage between the two buildings with the one story recreation building on the roof of the two • story garage (which is not mentioned in the settlement stipulation) . 2. The erosion at that property and the report of the Town sur- vey which fixes the present site as 5.1 acres instead of 5.6 acres on which the original settlement stipulation was made. 3. The needs of the Town and the tenure of the Town which have changed since 1979 and 1980, with the majority of the owners in Town, having by ballot, stated that they are against high- rise development. 4. That further, we are cognizant of the Growth Management Plan that has been adopted by the State of Florida; that we feel that this building, if it's built according to the settlement stipulation, will have a great impact on the ecology of the Town and State. It does not adhere to the present day zoning. 5. The report of the Coastal Technology Corporation Engineers should be presented to the judge. Ii we do not prevail, the Planning Board would recommend reissuance of the building permit on the original building plan. Hopefully, the judge would set a time limit since they had five years and at no place during those five years has the Town ever held Teron International up by delay. We feel it's unconscionable to let this court settlement stipulation continue for infinity. I PLANNING BOARD • Regular Meeting August 14, 1985 Page 4 of 6 Mr. M. A. Waldman seconded the MOTION. A roll call vote resulted as follows: Mrs. Leng 'aye' Mr. Waldman 'aye' Mr. Ward 'aye' Mrs. Rome 'aye' Mr. Saunders 'aye' Mrs. Rome's MOTION is to be forwarded to the Town Commission along with a copy of the Coastal Technology Corporation Report by R. Harvey Sasso, P.E., dated August 13, 1985. After much discussion regarding density, Town Attorney Barkin asked Mr. Schmidt if the Planning Board Members, at the time they passed their resolution, were correct in understanding that under no circum- stances would Teron go below 156 units. Or, are you stating that the 120 figure is not acceptable but you are not rigid with the 156, continued Mr. Barkin. Mr. Schmidt said that he will restate that 120 units is not acceptable; 128 units is not acceptable; it is Teron's great preference to go with the 156 units. If we could come to an arrangement with some kind of an • understanding between us on an alternative density, it would have to be based on what the arrangement is and what the density is. Mr. Waldman said that somewhere between the present day zoning of 82 units and 156 units would be a talking point --around 120 units would be giving some and taking some --and he would not like to approve more than 120 units. Vice Chairman Rome stated that she liked the 120 unit concept (the den- sity and the whole feeling of the building). With the present day zon- ing allowing 82 and the 156 Teron has in the settlement, continued Mrs. Rome, 120/125 would be a middle of the road thing. Mr. Ward said he was one of the original people suggesting 90 units. I thought even then, stated Mr. Ward, there was room for compromise and we would come out somewhere around 110/120. And, that's where I would stand today. Chairman Saunders, when asked by Mr. Schmidt for his feeling for a num- ber, said he could possibly live with 140 units, all things being equal; namely, that Teron remove the massiveness it adhered to. To the above comments, Mr. Schmidt responded that we all understand where all of us are. After a brief recess, Chairman Saunders reconvened the meeting at 11:50 A.M. and requested that Building Official Sutherland enlighten the Plan- ning Board Members on the Building Department Procedures. r- - - . ' I - 'I PLANNING BOARD • Regular Meeting August 14, 1985 Page 5 of 6 Building Official Sutherland advised the members that when a builder submits plans (along with site plan review application and fee) to the 'Suilding department, Mr. Sutherland goes through the zoning in relation to the setbacks, the type of zoning in that particular area where the building will be constructed, the height requirements and all the sti- pulations in the zoning pertinent to that specific zoning designation. The plans are initially checked to see if they comply completely with the criteria in that zoning designation. If the plans do not comply completely, the building official advised the builder that the plans can be corrected or withdrawn, continued Mr. Sutherland. Building plans are sent to the Planning Board after they have been thoroughly reviewed by the building official and meet with his approval. Site plan review applieations are broken down into preliminary presenta- tions and final presentations. Sometimes, builders do both the prelimi- nary and final presentation at the same time. However, large develop- ments generally go through a preliminary site plan review followed by a final site plan review. • After discussing the possibility of revamping the fee schedule, Chairman Saunders requested the building official prepare a memo regarding this matter that would be reviewed and discussed further by the Planning Board Members before it is forwarded to the Town Commission and the Town Manager. A suggestion was made that the fees be raised on a per- centage scale. Building Official Sutherland said the final review requires much time as the plans must be checked by the plumbing inspector, electrical inspector, mechanical inspector, Fire Department, Health Department and structural people. An important phase for the Planning Board, said Mr. Sutherland, is the preliminary review which entails concept, approval or disapproval. Once the Planning Board accepts the preliminary plan, the developer must come in with very detailed plans to the building department where every detail is checked. Once the building department okays the detailed plans, the Planning Board receives same for final approval. After the Planning Board approval, the matter is referred to the Town Commission where it is reviewed based on the Planning Board recommendation. Chairman Saunders informed the members he checked with Boca Raton re- garding construction fences and learned they have no restrictions per- taining totthis matter. I PLANNING BOARD Regular Meeting • August 14, 1985 Page 6 of 6 The Community Appearance Board and the Planning Board now check plans concurrently. The Community Appearance Board Members are interested in landscaping, exterior facade, lighting, etc., they check plans and make on site inspections. Plans are reviewed twice (the preliminary and final) by the Community Appearance Board. After the building is completed and the inspectors all sign off satis- factory inspections, a Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the build- ing official. All inspectors are certified in their fields and are contracted by the Town. Mrs. Leng said it is important to discuss the issue of 'timing'. As it is necessary for members to study plans, the Planning Board should have a policy where all changes must be made (perhaps a week or ten days) before a meeting date. And, the building official should make a list of things that the Planning Board Members should be cognizant of when they review the plans. The Planning Board will meet with Boca Hi at a Special Meeting on Wed- nesday, August 21, 1985, at 9:30 A.M. • Chairman Saunders set the next date for the regular meeting of the Planning Board for Wednesday, September 11, 1985, at 9:30 A.M. with the agenda closing date of August 27, 1985, at NOON. Mr. Waldman made a MOTION, seconded by Mrs. Rome, to adjourn the regular meeting. All members were in favor. Chairman Saunders adjourned the meeting£ 1?:2& P.M A ATTEST: DATE:,y amk S. ,_§aum)lers, Chairman D. R. Rome, Vice Chairman Waldman J. Ward „ /tee COASTAL TECH COASTAL TECHN0LOOY CORPORATION 5500 COASTAL, STRUCTURAL. CIVIL ENGNEERNG AND PLANNING SIXI TATH PLACE. VJTE 9. VERO !EACH. ROf.OA 1E9E0 (70W 447•63410 August 13, 1985 Mr. Thomas E. Sliney, Town Attorney TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH 3614 S. Ocean Boulevard Highland Beach, Florida 33431 RE: ENGINEERING SERVICES RELATIVE TO REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ROYAL HIGHLANDS DEVELOPMENT, HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA Dear Mr. Sliney: This is to serve as a preliminary report for the referenced engineering services. Please be advised that we have not completed our evaluation, however, we are submitting our preliminary analysis •to fulfill the desire of the Town to be provided with all information presently available. It is our opinion that the proposed construction is no longer in compliance with the settlement stipulation dated June 17, 1980 due to recent erosion. Ordinance No. 336 requires a construction setback of 50' from the is vegetation line, however, due to recent erosion, construction is proposed as close as 10 feet to the vegetation lime. Furthermore, it is likely that in the event of a major storm, the dune in front of the proposed seawall will be significantly eroded and the seawall would "be subjected to the direct impact of storm waves resulting in the transfer of wave forces to the upland buildings. Optimum design of the seawall to minimize erosion in front of this wall would include placement of a rock toe scour protection to minimize wave reflection and offshore sand movement away from the wall and/or a dune maintenance program. Following is a detailed discussion of the results of our review. A) REVIEW OF SETTLEMENT STIPULATION: The building setback on the east side of the property does not conform to the requirements of the settlement stipulation due to recent erosion on the property. The settlement stipulation states that "Drexel shall comply with the requirements of Ordinance No. 336 with respect to building height, building setback requirements and parking regulations except as follows". The section that follows this statement within the settlement stipulation does not specify a building setback from the ocean, therefore, Ordinance No. 336 governs. Section 5.15 of Chapter 30 of the Zoning Code is derived from Ordinance No. 336 and requires that prior to excavation from any lot east of SR A-1-A, a permit shall have been issued for construction of a seawall and "said wall shall be located at least • 50' west of the easterly survey line along the entire width of the property or the vegetation line which ever lies furthest west 0 .5500 Mr. Thomas E. Sliney August 13, 1985 Page Two along the entire width of the property". Based on the most recent survey prepared by O'Brien, Suiter and O'Brien, Inc. dated August 1, 1985, the proposed seawall and buildings at the north and south ends of the property are approximately 10 feet and 30 feet from the vegetation line respectively, and -therefore, do not comply with the requirements of the settlement stipulation and Ordinance No. 336 as outlined above. Exhibit "A" illustrates the location of the vegetation line (as shown on the August 1, 1985 survey)relative to the location of proposed structures. The settlement stipulation provides for a one-story recreational building. No provisions are made for the construction of a three-story recreational building. The original site plan by Peabody and Childs dated March 1980 and the subsequent site plan by J. McKenzie Venters dated May 1981 specify buildings "A" and "B" to be "13-story apartments over two story garage". No reference is made to the recreational building being constructed over a two-story garage. Additionally, paragraph 4A of the settlement stipulation specifies that Drexel shall have the right to construction "a one-story recreational building". Erosion has caused the reduction in area of the property from 5.6 acres to 5.1 acres. The site plan by Peabody and Childs dated • March 1980 states that the area of the property is 5.60 acres. Furthermore, this site plan specifies a density of 27.86 dwelling units per acre. The most recent survey by O'Brien, Suiter and O'Brien dated August 1, 1985 specifies an area of 5.1 acres upland of the MHWL. Based on this acreage the proposed density will be 30.6 dwelling units per acre. In the recent site plan application submitted to the Town dated April 1985 an upland area of 4.4 acres was specified. This acreage is not consistent with the recent survey. 40 B) STORM EROSION: Preliminary storm profile evaluations indicate that in the event of a 50 year storm the beach profile would be lowered to at least elevation +5.0 feet N.G.V.D. at the face of the proposed seawall. Due to the scouring action of waves impacting the face of the vertical seawall, it is expected that the beach immediately seaward of the seawall will be adversely impacted by increased erosion. The vertical face of the seawall will reflect the wave energy resulting in the offshore movement of sand away from the beach and the acceleration of erosion within the Town of Highland Beach. Our qualitative review of the proposed seawall suggests that in the event of a 50 year storm, erosion in front of the wall may result in waves directly impacting the seawall and direct transfer of wave forces to the upland buildings. If these buildings are not designed for wave impact, major structural damage of the buildings may occur. �v COASTAL TECH COASTAL, STRUCTURAL, CIVIL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING 9 -5500 Mr. Thomas E. Sliney August 13, 1985 Page Three In order to reduce the probability of structural failure of the seawall in the event of a major storm, the wall could be constructed with a toe scour protection structure. Also the building should be demonstrated to be capable of resisting a major storm. To further minimize the potential adverse effects of the seawall, the dune could be maintained via regular placement of sand; this sand placement will reduce the exposure of the seawall and thus reduce its adverse effect upon the beach and the -dune. C) DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PERMITS: The Department of Natural Resources DNR has issued permits for construction of the south "return wall" 53' seaward of the control line and construction of a "reinforced concrete cap extending a maximum of 3" seaward of the control line" over a distance of about 165 feet shore parallel. A DNR permit was first issued on May 15, 1981. The Town Building Official issued a letter of no objection to the DNR on March 26, 1981. This DNR permit expired on May 15, 1983. A second DNR permit for the proposed construction was administratively approved by the State on September 14, 1984 which is valid until September 13, 1985. No record of Town approval of the seawall is indicated within the Town files relative to the 1984 DNR permit application. The DNR was contacted and apparently a letter of "no objection" dated August 10, 1984 had been forwarded to the DNR from Eileen Roberts, Town Manager. The letter noted however that the Town reserved the right to review the plans before issuance of a building permit. In a report titled, "Status Overview" (dated January, 1984) the DNR has rated the adequacy of the location of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) within Palm Beach County as "Fair to Poor". DNR Staff stated that the location of the CCCL will be studied and re-established further landward before 1989. D. "GROWTH MANAGEMENT BILL": The State of Florida has inacted legisltation Florida Statutes Section 161.53-161.58) which designates coastal building zones as "the land area from the Seasonal High Water Line (SHWL) landward to a line 1,500 feet landward from the Coastal Construction Control Line". Beginning March 1, 1986 all construction of major structures within the coastal building zone shall be required to be designed to withstand a 100 year storm event. Section 161.55 will require (by March 1, 1986) that major structures be designed to resist wave loads and wind loads of 140 miles per hour expected in a 100 C) COASTAL TECH COMM. SMUCtURAL. CIVIL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING 0 0 Mr.`Thomas E. Sliney August 13. 1985 Page Four year storm event; this section also will require structures to be "elevated in such a manner as to locate the building support structure above the design wave breaking wave crests . . . of a 100 year storm". The building currently proposed for this parcel in Highland Beach does not meet these requirements. As of October 1, 1985 the Growth Management Bill (Section 161.053(6)) limits construction of oceanfront property by a "seaward limit of the projected SHWL within 30 years after the date of application for" a permit. Informal discussions with Division of Beaches and Shores Staff indicates that this line will be considered a line of "prohibition" such that no major structures will be permitted seaward of the line. DNR Staff has prepared a draft report towards establishing rules for the delineation of the projected SHWL. Evaluation of this data indicates that a shoreline recession in Palm Beach County is approximately .66 feet per year. Within 30 years we estimate that the SHWL will be located seaward of the proposed seawall based on average Palm Beach County erosion rates compiled by the DNR. Comparison of the 1981 survey submitted by the applicant with the recent 1985 survey of the property indicates that the average recession rate of the SHWL is about 7.6 feet per year. Thus, in 30 years it may be projected that the SHWL may be located landward of the west property line of the property. At this time the DNR is formulating rules and procedures for estimating the "30 year — SHWL"; it is not certain at this time as to whether the application of this line of prohibition would affect this property under the restrictions of the legislation. As identified above, it is our opinion that the proposed construction does not comply with the settlement stipulation agreement based on existing site conditions. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. Sincerely, TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION R. Harvey S s ,P.E. Project Engi r RHS:lae cc: Michael P. Walther Z) COASTAL TECH COASTAL. STRUMURAL, CIVIL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING !E ge,049,09'a F 4 44 Q h < w q w w F Ozxx wy <FE+ <POw Eap G1 11OLCHNw 0 C403w 4 to W N a H E.H m rs0r4 PI M04ZM H F W O O in 3 1- a n.3MR awwn�"'N w U pgwa�P`�< w q HAa<yo0t .>zwww zCO N t'OON w y"a00 tAaOy,07GM Az ry Z ca z H ZxW -E_Ix P. a O F w O t N 'Z w a V I. a 0 0 q pa pa pa pa um w.3 SK < q< SwFPaA U p+azNawF w < M < < < < a <a,awwwa z F 94 z ..4 U xA aa..F sN wW ix IL) E--q wM CAz w< L < fA hl pa En CLI 0 04 N 004 O V] 4 xw Cdcn wz A. .4 Nva 0. .4 0 > Hw Z++W aU w qN O OH aW �FitFi� w N iA 0.6 w 3•+ w q < > < - to O a Diwi wE O� = w mo oa WOQ o w0° oa aIn <zn ti`w EN•0 zs Ufs a.4 E-0400 ..3a a0z W q-a,a ww WmD w .'c FO to a a4 .-� q < w zac Mwao ws•w N C7F Nto O• w0 N c� aah OaF sewp 0 O< at0< wl woe ewx awa H 0 at