Loading...
1986.05.14_PB_Minutes_RegularTOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA Minutes of Planning Board Meeting i Wednesday, May 14, 1986 9:30 A.M. A Regular Meeting of the Planning Board of the Town of Highland Beach was called to order by Chairman Irving Saunders at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 14, 1986 in the Town Commission Chambers at Town Hall. The Recording Secretary called the roll. Present were: Chairman Irving S. Saunders, Vice Chairman Doris R. Rome, Marvin A. Waldman, John E. Ward, Amelie Leng, Chris H. Bartlett (Alternate), and Abraham Futernick (Alternate). Also present were: Town Attorney Thomas E. Sliney, Building Official Bruce Sutherland, Recording Secretary Elizabeth L. Kolek, Representatives of Concordia Properties, Representatives of the Frederick Property, Representatives of the Sunrise Savings & Loan Property, Representatives of Teron International, and members of the general public. The Minutes of the March 26, 1986 Public Hearing and April 9, 1986 Regular Meeting were accepted and approved as submitted. . Because the Town Attorney and some of the principals on the agenda of today's meeting were not present at the opening of the meeting, the Chairman called for a short recess at 9:35 a.m. until they were present. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:50 A.M. Chairman Saunders announced the purpose of today's meeting, but also stated that they would be heard in a different order than listed: (1) COLMAN, FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW, LOTS 101 EAST AND WEST. (CONCORDIA PROPERTIES, AKA VILLA MARE AND VILLA MARE GARDEN) (2) ROYAL HIGHLANDS AMENDED SITE PLAN REVIEW, LOTS 20-28 E. (3) FREDERICKS PROPERTY, PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF A PROPOSAL TO REZONE LOTS 133 THRU 137, EAST AND WEST. Chairman Saunders asked that the Representatives of the Frederick Property come forward and state their purpose. Arthur Kramer, Attorney representing the Frederick Property on the West side of A-1-A introduced the other representatives present: Mr. Robert Thinnes, Senior Planner and Bob Parm, Real Estate Broker for Commercial Center Development Corp., 4730 N.W. Second Avenue, Boca Raton, Florida, owned by William Frederick. Mr. Kramer stated that they would not like to see the property re- zoned. Attorney Sliney was asked by Chairman Saunders to give a brief history and background of this property. According to public records the property ownership had been split and is no longer a Planning Board Minutes • May 13, 1986 Page 2 of 12 joint venture, Attorney Sliney stated. He also stated that the agreements made a year ago have not been consummated and the proposed new Unity of Title was not signed by all parties and was not recorded, therefore the property reverts back to the last Unity of Title, as it was recorded. All the property is zoned single family (RS). The West side was replatted for 6 lots but the East side was never replatted. The amenities building can still be used by all lots on the East and West sides. Doris Rome stated that she would like to see the properties rezoned from RS (Residential Single-family) to RE (Residential Estate) lots because it is in the estate section of Town and Mr. Frederick has built an estate on the West side and stated that Mr.Frederick said he was creating a "family compound". She also stated that if there was a Unity of Title that the Town did not like, it should take the necessary steps to undo them as quickly as possible. Amelie Leng agreed that this should be changed to RE and the Board must consider the property surrounding it and look after their interest. . Don Golden and Bruce Logan, Representatives of Sunrise Savings and Loan, stated they oppose the rezoning of this property to RE. Marvin Waldman agreed that that land is suitable to the RE zoning. He also stated that the Board wants to build things better than before and is constantly striving to improve the Town. Attorney Sliney solicited ideas from area property owners present to resolve the problem, since all owners of this property were present. This is a preliminary meeting today, he reminded. Bob Parm stated that these are two separate properties (owned by two different entitities) and would like to leave the West side as it is platted for the best interest of the Town. They do not want the property downgraded. Mrs. Rome and Mr. Waldman reiterated that to rezone to RE is upgrading the property. Robert Thinnes gave his views and stated that all aspects of the property should be considered land use. He asked what level of review does a requested use of a property go through. He felt there may be some problems down the road and stated there is an existing plat there. Except for single family homes, all land use plans must go before • the Planning Board and the Community Appearance Board, followed by the Town Commission, the Planning Board Members stated in reply to Mr. Thinnes question. F, Planning Board Minutes May 14, 1986 Page 3 of 12 • Chairman Saunders stated that the Town Commission has contracted for the services of a Town Planner (Gee and Jenson of West Palm Beach, Florida) to look into this site and other sites in Town regarding any proposed changes in zoning. After much discussion, it was the CONSENSUS of this Board not to make any decision today, but will investigate the matter further, after which a Public Hearing will be held and all correct procedures adhered to, before a decision is made. Attorney Sliney wanted the present owners to respond to the Planning Board's request for ideas and input as to the future of this property and stated he would be willing to meet with the parties involved to clarify matters. Chairman Saunders asked for the representative of Royal Highlands to come forward and introduce himself for the record and state his purpose. Mr. Lorenz Schmidt, with Teron International (Royal Highlands), stated he was here for three purposes: (1) Amendments to prior approvals ---one he feels is important and the other is a clarification; (2) Refinements to the approved plan; and • (3) Clarifying information re floor plans and interiors. None of these items will delay their building plans and present plans are to submit the seawall permit request on June 4, 1986. Mr. Schmidt stated that he provided the Building Department with a copy of the Coastal Engineers report this week. His first request is to reduce the height of the garage from 6.75 to 4.75, a two foot difference. This would enable them to take 33 car spaces off the site and put them under the building. 41 cars will be outside versus 74. Guests will park inside ---will get a smoother rhythm and a denser background of landscaping and are swapping volume for usable space. The main entrance will now be at the second level after two ramps. They have reorganized the recreation deck within the same space. Pool will now be 50 x 30 ft. versus 20 x 40 ft. The seawall will be part of the building, 1 inch from the Coastal Construction Control Line. The waterfall will still be visible from the front and a transparency will filter through. Frontal mass is eliminated. A soil survey (to determine hydrostatic pressure) is yet to be done to determine where the foundation and slabs will be located. Attorney Sliney stated that this is a technical aspect and that the Planning Board needs to approve it and then it will be sent to the Town Commission for approval. He did not wish to upset the time frame. Town Commission has the final approval. Building Official Sutherland stated that the initial report seems to be well thought out but he did not have an engineering report. He added that the lowering of the garage is not against the Code, which only applies to living space. Mr. Schmidt showed detailed floor plans of the units showing a reduced balcony giving more interior space with inside controlled Planning Board Minutes • May 14, 1986 Page 4 of 12 storm shutters, with the 3 bedroom units having 2500 sq. ft. and the 2 bedroom units having 2400 sq. ft. Two units have been eliminated at the top level (total units are now 130 versus 132) thus adding to penthouse space and eliminating two visible towers. Mr. Schmidt showed other plans which showed the entrance to be a 50 square foot area, moved pool to an area for better sun exposure and away from the West side, there is now more landscaping and the entire view from A-1-A will be more pleasing to the eye, you get a feeling that the building is lower because the landscaping will be higher. He showed the 18 points which were explored some years ago and he feels that they will not hit ground water until they get to a certain point but they will have a thorough report done to take into consideration the most adverse conditions and feels there is no problem in this area. Mr. Schmidt stated that the present time frame plan is to submit plans to the Building Official by August 1, 1986, 60 days to approve and by September 4, 1986, will obtain a Building Permit. The first tower should be completed in one year, the second tower will be ready for occupancy in the second year. • Chairman Saunders stated that it is the responsibility of their engineers who should be very concerned about any water which may eminate in washing away the sand from any foundations and supports. Mr. Schmidt showed plans of where the beach would be located in comparison to the building, vegetation line, etc. Teron plans to rebuild and revegetate a certain part of the dune line, as per their agreement with the Town. The engineers looked at all aspects before making recommendations in their report. Amelie Leng felt that until the Board reviewed the ground engineering report that the Board cannot approve these changes, in the event any water should get into the parking garage. Mr. Schmidt felt no problem exists but also felt that the engineers can find a solution as needed. Mrs. Rome agreed that due to the history of developers dissappearing after condominiums are built, the Board should be extremely careful to check any changes made and would also like to see an engineers report. Building Official Sutherland saw no concern and stated that Mr. Schmidt assured him an engineers report will be available but he understood the Board's concern. • Attorney Sliney was also concerned that the engineering studies were not available and was also concerned about the possibility of the time frames being upset. F, Planning Board Minutes • May 14, 1986 Page 5 of 12 Mr. Schmidt added that the hurricane shutters are controlled from inside the unit, which is the same type of format and style projected within the building. It adds to the architecture and also protects the windows, which is also monolythic and the shutters do not have to be dragged across the balcony to close and open. Part of the balcony is turned into a bedroom or a sitting room at the option of the purchaser. No other parameters have been changed. Chairman Saunders felt that it would be to the advantage of the developer to offer the three bedroom plan. Amelie Leng asked the architect to explain the shutters. The architect explained he felt this helped promote the Mediterranean feeling in the design. The shutters do double duty in providing insulation in addition to protection from storms. All the shutters will be alike. Mr. Schmidt's final point was that the density was reduced by the changes in the top of the building (on the 13th floor) by 2 units making a single penthouse on the 13th level of each building --a total of 130 units, with less mass. Mrs. Rome stated she is in favor of all the changes because it gives more room for landscaping, takes away the outside parking, the bulk at top is being reduced, likes the reduction of 2 units, but was concerned about how the Planning Board could make a decision if the requested changes were against the Code. After being assured by the Building Official that the Planning Board was within their rights to approve this because the change of 6.75 to 4.75 in the height of garage is not against the Code, Mrs. Rome stated that a Special Meeting should be held by the Planning Board to discuss this further after the engineers report regardomg hydrostatic pressure is received for the first floor parking garage, which meeting Mr. Schmidt agreed to attend to explain the report. Attorney Sliney stated that the Planning Board should make a recommendation one way or another today (instead of giving approval) and move it along to the Town Commission (who also will review the engineers report) for its approval, who is the final word. Mrs. Rome reiterated the following points: Mr. Schmidt presented three basic plans today ---(a) reducing the level of the garage from 6.75 to 4.75 which would eliminate outside parking space • giving more landscaping ground and open space around the building which we are all in favor of subject to the engineering report Planning Board Minutes May 14, 1986 Page 6 of 12 • agreeing with the dropping of the garage floor; (b) changing the amenities deck, pool etc.; (c) less bulk showing on the top of the building and reducing the density by 2 apartments; (d) change in inside elevations, more air conditioned space, which was not objectionable, all of these hinging on the lowering of the garage. Mr. Waldman explained that since the prior plans submitted were according to Code, no engineering reports were required. Mrs. Leng stated she would like to see the plans for the garage openings. Mr. Schmidt assured Mrs. Leng, Mrs. Rome, and the rest of the Board, that they would submit plans according to the Town Commission request to be similar to Parker Highlands, emitting no light and not using decorative block, which emits light. After much discussion, MOTION was made by Doris Rome, seconded by John Ward, that the Planning Board recommends that the Town Commission approve these proposed plans, subject to a favorable engineers report on the hydrostatic pressure. All members voted AYE. CHAIRMAN SAUNDERS CALLED FOR A SHORT RECESS OF FIVE MINUTES. Upon reconvening the meeting at 11:25 a.m., Mr. Ward commented • that the actions of this Board should not only be fair, should also be perceived as being fair by the Town's inhabitants. He felt that the Board was not advised of Mr. Colman's presentation today and that at least two weeks notice was not observed. Attorney Sliney stated there is existing litigation on several properties. One of his jobs is to look into the proposals and make the Board aware of what the proposals are. It was not presented to the Board in a formal manner at the last meeting but the Board is asked in the manner of "are you interested in it or are you not interested in it?" Chairman Saunders asked Mr. Colman to come forward and identify himself for the record and proceed. Philip Colman began by stating he appreciates being given the opportunity to acquaint the Board with a general outline of his proposal which did not require Board approval and no approval was given at the last meeting on April 9. He regrets that two weeks required notice was not given in this case but also stated that other presentations have been heard by the Board without a notice. The Board is aware of the general concept of the proposal. He presented a copy of his presentation to the Planning Board on April 9, 1986 (COPY IS ATTACHED TO THESE MINUTES) so he would not have to repeat the same again today. He also submitted a copy of • Planning Board Minutes May 14, 1986 • Page 7 of 12 todays' history and status of the proposed Villa Mare and Villa Mare Garden on LOTS 101 EAST AND WEST and the introduction of their architect, Paul Twitty, of the firm of Schwab and Twitty (COPY IS ATTACHED TO THESE MINUTES). Paul Twitty showed plans and a scale model of the proposed plans for Villa Mare and Villa Mare Garden citing sound architectural principals and an improvement over what they feel is presently allowed by the code. They are proposing a 60 unit building east of A-1-A (12 apartment floors and 2 level parking garage and an amenity level, which is 14 levels over a basement level) keeping the building's entire profile in keeping with the other buildings in the area. The building will have a fountain entry, 137 on site parking spaces (Code requires 121 spaces) of which only 15 are on the outside (height of garage is 7.5), 5 apartments per floor (2 bedroom, 2 bath and 3 bedroom, 2 bath units). Each living room is designed to have a feeling of a corner apartment and have full exposure. Three landscaped service areas will be to the north end of the site. By providing two levels of parking no cars will need to park on the west side of A-1-A. The entrance ways will be wide and high enough to accommodate service and emergency vehicles. The entrance will be visually blocked from the street by a landscaping buffer. Service and trash entrance to the garage is • screened from A-1-A. The first floor and main entry level will have an under -cover turn circle to the main entrance area and will have covered parking. The pool will be on the roof of the lobby level (2nd floor), screened for privacy on the south side, with 15 cabanas, major recreational room with exercise areas and saunas, etc. There are a maximum amount of amenities to support the 60 units of the building. The first three levels are support levels. The apartments will be above. The building has observed all required setbacks, including the Coastal Construction Control Line. Visually from the street they feel it will be a lifestyle that will be complimentary to the area. Presently an 80 foot building is allowed on the lots of each side of the road which would create a concrete channel. They feel what they are proposing is much more architecturally pleasing than having two buildings, one on each side of the road. The building will be impacted visually by the other buildings and someday a building may be built on the vacant lot on the West side of A-1-A, to the north of Lot 101 west. The color of the building will be a delicate shell color. The architecture is a conservative, contemporary type and is used all around the building, which they feel is appropriate for the surrounding area. They propose to create a permanent open space, a park with much landscaping and meandering nature walk (to include a Japanese Garden) and benches, in which 95% native vegetation will be used. The mangroves will be retained. Two tennis courts for the apartment owners will be included. • Mr. Twitty introduced Mr. Gus A. Perna, Jr., Senior planner with Team Associates, who gave the Planning Board Members each a Planning Board Minutes May 14, 1986 Page 8 of 12 • reduced copy of a photograph of the proposed garden area and gave a more detailed description of the proposed west side. A pedestrian easement goes from A-1-A to the Intracoastal. Two tennis courts and a Japanese Garden are proposed. The garden takes 2/3 of the site near A-1-A. The mangroves will be preserved 100%. The site will be cleaned out of undergrowth of Brazilian Peppers and Casuarinas. The standard fence will be installed around the tennis courts to blend in. Even though they are offering a building with additional height, they feel they are staying within the profile and character of the side neighbors and feel that the permanent open space they are proposing on the west side will be a very pleasant contribution to the neighbors in this area. He feels the building will be a luxury type building supported by the amenities a luxury building needs. He stated that they are all available for any questions the Board may have. Mr. Perna then introduced Colonel Reed who designed the Japanese Garden and was affiliated with Morikami Park, west of Delray Beach, has 50 years of experience, and was Chairman of the C.A.B. in Boynton Beach for many years. Mr. Perna also introduced Mr. Harry B. Smith, Attorney with the firm of Smith and Manler of Miami Beach, who made some comments • that he felt were important. Mr. Smith stated that this property is in litigation. Mr. Colman, the developer, has an obligation to try to bring something better to the community, whether the litigation is lost or successful ---having 68 units each on two sites or one building with 60 units on one site. For the record, the garden on the west side would have deed restrictions so no structures could ever be built, there would be a perpetual easement to the general public so they could traverse the property to the Intracoastal Waterway, and it would be written into the condominium documents, which would be submitted to the Town Attorney. Maintainance of this property would be included as an obligation of each unit owner, who would have an undivided common interest in it so that the Town would have the assurance that it would be kept in the condition originally proposed. Mr. Smith added that there would be the necessary deed restrictions and dedicated easements to the general public so that all the people of the Town could traverse the park and walk through it but only restrict the use of the tennis courts to the condominium association members. They feel this is a better way than trusting the Courts as to the outcome of the litigation. As Mr. Colman said, he has this property under contract and part of the contract is that if they can get the site plan approval, he has the authority to dismiss the litigation. Mr. Smith urged the Board to accept this proposal. Mr. Smith also stated that Mr. Colman is only associated with the top of the line product and has a good track • record in Town. Because of his reputation, Mr. Smith said he was proud to be associated with Mr. Colman and be his attorney. Planning Board Minutes May 14, 1986 is Page 9 of 12 Mr. Waldman said that this Board does not have the authority to approve this proposal, at this time, no matter if they like it or not because the property has to be rezoned properly to accommodate this plan. Mr. Smith disagreed because since the matter is in litigation, this Board has the right to approve this site plan and everything, but it still has to come before the Town Commission. The Town's Attorney can tell the Board what it can or cannot do. It has to start here. There is one lot with one zoning. There is no other similar situation in the Town right now. He said that as the Planning body and the experts they have the right to approve it. Mr. Smith reassured Mrs. Leng that there is no legal problem with a condominium paying for the maintainance of a park used by the public. Mrs. Leng also felt the liability insurance would be prohibitive. Mr. Smith cited two incidents in the past where density was transferred, Highlands Place and the Townhouses of Highland Beach, as a result of Court proceedings. Mr. Ward stated there are 11 similar types of property in Town and was concerned that this would create a precedent. Mrs. Rome stated that she feels actions taken by this Board could is have repercussion to the Town. Mr. Colman stated that no matter what the Board or Town Commission does, it always creates a precedent. Each individual case should be judged on its own merits. He feels there are no other sites in Town similar so there is no precedent. This is one lot number and is zoned RMH. Others have different lot numbers and different zoning. Mr. Colman stated that if this is not approved by the Board today, no one knows what will be built on that site. Mr. Colman stated that it is the Boards responsibility to make suggestions to the Town Commission, that this makes good sense and is good for the Town as a whole, that the Board recommend it and let the Town Commission decide what to do. Mr. Colman agreed that they are not in conformity with Town Code and that the Town has changed the Code before. The prime questions here are the Town is involved in litigation and what are the advantages and disadvantages of this proposal. Chairman Saunders asked for the Town Attorney's thoughts and Attorney Sliney replied stating that this property is in litigation presently and this discussion is meant to familiarize the members with the case. Each case is unique. It is a legitimate concern as to how, if any, density transfers concern other properties. It is not fair to let one property owner do it • Planning Board Minutes May 14, 1986 • Page 10 of 12 and not let another do the same. Even if the Board likes this proposal, unqualified approval cannot be given because, as the Building Official previously pointed out, this does not meet all the zoning requirements. Attorney Sliney thinks the Board, as an advisory board, should give their thoughts to the governing body as to what they like and what they do not like about the proposal and then it can be worked out legally if the Town Commission also likes it. Doris Rome stated that the Town Manager requested, by way of a Memo, that the Town Commission would like to know what the Board means by "conceptual approval". A concept is an "idea" and she feels that an idea could be discussed pro and con, without putting oneself in jeopardy, a feeling which obviously the Town Manager and the Town Commissioners do not agree with. She feels to discuss this would be a good thing for the Town. She feels Mr. Colman builds a high class type of building and has a good reputation and also feels that a passive park would be good to have in an overgrown Town. She also thought it would solve a pending lawsuit for the Town, but now feels she does not know what her decision is because of the recent critical memos received. She worked very hard as a Board Member to get the present zoning • adopted and now if she approves this, it would go against all the hard work. Chairman Saunders stated that in his experience as an architect and a planner, he would like to point out that he would never approve anyone coming before this board for conceptual approval, and felt their duty is to consider something that is brought before them as a site plan review. Mr. Waldman reiterated his position that he feels this Board cannot give unqualified approval for this concept at this time. Mr. Colman stated that he was not asking for unqualified approval but is asking for approval on what was presented, that the Board thinks this is a good idea, subject to the Town Commission's approval. It was the desire of those working on the present Comprehensive Plan to reduce density, which can be done in many ways. Density cannot be reduced in existing buildings. What he is now proposing is not spot rezoning, but a rectification of what should never have been done. He is not changing, altering, or interfering with the work that has already been done but is assisting with it. He is creating an open area which this Town will never get again, equivalent to 1200 trees, and will cost in excess of $300,000, which is a gift to the Town and is reducing the density at the same time. Mr. Colman is only asking for a E F, Planning Board Minutes May 14, 1986 is Page 11 of 12 recommendation at this time and the Town Commission will make the the final decision, which they will have to account for. John Ward reminded that the Ordinances of the Town should be obeyed, even though they all like the concept and the open land. He read from the Code of Ordinances about the transfer of density and that a variance does not allow this proposal. Attorney Sliney said there were some legal problems but the Board should state if they like this or not, to move this forward. He does not see this as spot zoning. What the Town will get out of this should be considered and what is the best solution. If the Board does not like this proposal, it will not be discussed any more. If the Board does like it, then it can go forward. Chairman Saunders stated that this Board should take a stand. Mr. Smith stated that Mr. Colman does have time restraints on this and needs a "yea" or "nay", in order to get it on the Town Commission agenda. Building Official Sutherland stated that the over all height would be 128 feet over a basement, approximately 138 feet. Mr. Everett isbrought in additional plans and information today, which showed the dwelling to be 35%. Cabanas proposed are allowed by the Code. There is more than 10% green area (10% is minimum). 0 Doris Rome stated that a legal survey shows that the Ambassadors East is 9 inches over the property line and this will need to have a legal correction made. The Building Official agreed. After much discussion, John Ward made a RECOMMENDATION that subject to resolving the legal obstacles and obtaining an affirmative opinion from the Town's Attorney, this Board regards the site plan submitted by Concordia Properties, Inc. as representing good planning which would be an asset to the Town. A ROLL CALL VOTE FOLLOWED: MR. WALDMAN - AYE MR. WARD - AYE MRS. LENG - NAY MR. SAUNDERS - AYE MRS. ROME - AYE The recommendation carried 4 to 1. Chairman Saunders thanked Mr. Colman for his presentation. Attorney Sliney reminded those present for the record that this F, v o . 0 r1 L_J Planning Board Minutes May 14, 1986 Page 12 of 12 was not meant to be an approval of any type and wanted all to understand this. It is not a site plan approval, only a site plan review. Mr. Smith said he would be happy to dictate for the record that it has no legal effect on the present litigation. Chairman Saunders stated that the next meeting of the Planning Board will be held on Wednesday, June 11, 1986, at 9:30 a.m. Mr. Waldman suggested that the Boca Hi and Hoffman sites should be discussed on the agenda of the next meeting. Attorney Sliney stated that Mr. Toshner (Gee & Jenson) should also be present to assist. MOTION to adjourn this meeting of the Planning Board was made by Marvin Waldman, seconded by Doris Rome, at 1 p.m. All were in favor. ATTiPT: P DATE. ELK ATTACHMENTS 2: APPROVED: Irving S. and s, Chairman Doris Rome, Vice Chairman John E: Ward MarV i A. Waldman Amelie Leng (1) 4/9/86 COLMAN STATEMENT RE LOTS 101 E/W TO PLANNING BOARD (2) 5/14/86 COLMAN STATEMENT RE LOTS 101 E/W TO PLANNING BOARD