Loading...
2013.05.20_PB_Minutes_Special - • % °•' �'•do 0 TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH $o: . � 1 0 MINUTES OF THE �h�� ' • f ..... = PLANNING BOARD tonta __= SPECIAL MEETING Monday, May 20, 2013 9:30 AM Members Present: Chair Carol Stern; Vice Chair Ilyne Mendelson; Board Member Ronald Clark; Board Member Stephen Golding; Board Member Harvey Mart; Board Member Ronald Rajsky and Board Member William Svenstrup. Also Attending: Town Attorney Leonard Rubin; Building Official Michael Desorcy; Deputy Town Clerk Valerie Oakes and members of the public. CALL TO ORDER Chair Stern called the Regular Meeting to order at 9:30 AM in the Commission Chambers. Roll call was taken by Deputy Town Clerk Oakes followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OR ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA Chair Stern asked for any additions or deletions to the agenda, hearing none, called for a motion to accept the agenda as presented. MOTION: Member Clark moved to accept the agenda as presented. Vice Chair Mendelson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND REOUESTS Karen Gross, 3210 S. Ocean Blvd., Villa Costa — I am curious about the property line and setbacks for the construction at 3200 S. Ocean Blvd. It appears that the ground level is within the setback. Chair Stern — This will be discussed during Agenda Item 7A. PRESENTATIONS No presentations. APPROVAL OF MINUTES No minutes for approval. • Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes Monday, May 20, 2013 Page 2 of 10 OLD BUSNESS: • A) Application #29739 — 4521 South Ocean Blvd.; Sea Frolic, LLC CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF (TWO) ATTACHED, 3 STORY, SINGLE- FAMILY DWELLINGS, EACH WITH APPROXIMATELY 11,007 TOTAL SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND APPROXIMATELY 7,131 SQ. FT. OF THAT TOTAL UNDER A/C. APPLICANT: Seadar Builders, Inc. Staffs Presentation: Building Official Desorcy — The initial presentation for this project was made at the last regular meeting. The only question was the form of ownership. Since that time, the developer has agreed that the form of ownership would be a condominium association with one property address designating each unit. Chair Stern — Are there two different driveways? Are they gated? Building Official — There will be two different driveways. At this time, I do not have any plans showing that it will be gated. Member Golding — Did they form the condominium association? Building Official — The attorney for the developer, who is here today, would have to answer that question. Member Rajsky — Does the setback meet code? Building Official — Yes, the setbacks meet all zoning requirements on all sides. Petitioner's Presentation: Scott Elk of Scott Elk, P.A., Representative for Sea Frolic, LLC — In response to the questions, there will be an underlying condominium form of ownership. It has not been formed at this time as we are reviewing the terms and conditions that we want for this location such as aesthetics. There will be two separate drives going into each attached unit. We are going to investigate the possibility of having two addresses, if that is not legally possible, it will be one address designating each unit by A and B or 1 and 2. It is possible that at a later time we may come back to the Town to request the installation of a gate, but that has not been determined. Member Golding — Why hasn't the association been formed with the State? Petitioner Attorney Elk — Legally to have a condominium association, there are different types. It is a complicated process. I am prepared to commit to this Board that it will be an underlying condominium association. MOTION: Vice Chair Mendelson moved to accept the site plan subject to it being a condominium association. Member Mart seconded the motion. • Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes Monday, May 20, 2013 Page 3 of 10 Roll Call: Vice Chair Mendelson — Yes Member Mart — Yes Member Raj sky — Yes Member Svenstrup — Yes Member Clark — Yes Member Golding — Yes Chair Stern — Yes Motion carried 7/0. B) Application #29739 — 4521 South Ocean Blvd.; Sea Frolic, LLC CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SIGN. APPLICANT: Seadar Builders, Inc. Chair Stern read aloud the title of the application. Building Official Desorcy recommended the approval of the sign as it meets the code. Member Mart — The code requires a street address, which is not on the sign. Building • Official — I will require a street address. Member Raisky — Likewise, it appears that all of the lettering is not in black, which is required by code. Building Official — The can be changed to black and white, which is agreeable by the developer. Member Rajsky — When will the sign be removed? Building Official — The construction sign stays up 30 days after the certificate of occupancy is issued. MOTION: Member Mart moved to approve the temporary construction sign subject to the sign having a street address and all lettering in black. Member Rajsky seconded the motion. Roll Call: Member Mart — Yes Member Raj sky — Yes Member Svenstrup — Yes Member Clark — Yes Member Golding — Yes Vice Chair Mendelson — Yes Chair Stern — Yes Motion carried 7/0. Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes Monday, May 20, 2013 Page 4 of 10 NEW BUSINESS • A) 3200 South Ocean Blvd.; 3200 Highland Beach Holdings, LLC CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL FOR THE REQUEST OF EXTENSION OF THE VARIANCE AND DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL GRANTED TO PRIOR OWNER. APPLICANT: Mitchell Kirschner, Esq. Chair Stern read the application description into the record. Staff Presentation: Town Attorney Leonard Rubin — This is the consideration of the Board's approval for an extension the development order. A number of years ago, the Florida legislature automatically approved all local governmental development orders that granted a four year extension period. The developer is looking to extend for another year from the date the Commission approves the extension. This would apply to the development plans. There was a variance, which is considered a development order and would also be included in the extension. There are some minor fagade and elevations changes that the developer will show you as a matter of information. The Board can comment on those things. This is not a full scale review of the project; this is limited to the extension request and a review of the changes to the facade. Vice Chair Mendelson — The State gave four years? Attorney Rubin — The State • granted a four year extension. The Planning Board makes a recommendation to the Town Commission and the Commission makes the final decision. Member Rajsky — Why does the Planning Board review the extension and not the Board of Adjustment & Appeals? Attorney Rubin — It is only before the Planning Board because of the extension. The variance is part of the development plan. We are not revisiting the variance; only the request for time extension, which under the code must go before the Planning Board for review. Chair Stern — The extension would allow 12 months to pull permits? Attorney Rubin — Yes. Member Golding — Are the boat docks included in the site plan? Building Official — The marina has not been approved at this time. Those approvals will come from the Army Corp of Engineer, Town Commission, and Planning Board. The docks shown on the plan are only for illustration to show the completed look of the project. The building footprint is exactly the same, but the new building is four inches shorter than the old plans. The number of units increased from 15 to 22. The parking spaces increased from 38 to 47. Vice Chair Mendelson — How did they increase the number of units? Did they build . higher? Building Official — They reduced the amount of square footage per unit. Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes Monday, May 20, 2013 Page 5 of 10 • Initially the first design incorporated units at 4,000 sq. ft. per unit that has been reduced to 2,500 sq. ft. per unit. The size of the units have been diminished to accommodate the extra amount of units. Member Golding — It seems that the old plans are totally different than the new plans. Building Official — They are not totally different; the building footprint is exactly the same. You are voting on the extension, not the design. Member Golding — What happens if we do not approve the extension? Attorney Rubin — If it is not extended ultimately by the Town Commission, then it is expired and they cannot construct. The developer would have to go through the approval process as a new project. Member Golding — That would mean new fees. How much are the fees? Building Official — The Board of Adjustment fee is $500.00, and the Planning Board fee is $200.00. You are considering the approval of the variance that was to increase the height of the building to seven stories, which is over 50 feet. The setbacks were never an issue and meet all of the zoning requirements. Vice Chair Mendelson — How many floors would it have been without the variance? Building Official — It would be approximately five floors. • Vice Chair Mendelson — Even though it is the same footprint, it is seven more units and more parking, so it seems like a different project. They are asking for 12 months; is that the prescribed amount of time? Attorney Rubin — It would be a maximum of one year under the code. You could recommend what you feel is appropriate; however, each extension can only be a maximum of one year. Petitioner Presentation: Tom Sliney, Esq., Petitioner Representative — This has been a difficult project as the Mr. and Mrs. Masi were unable to fund the project. This is an eyesore in the middle part of the Town. Our clients want to get rid of the eyesore by building a magnificent project by increasing the property values in the Town. Mitchell Kirschner, Petitioner Representative — This property had been approved through the Board of Adjustment & Appeals, Planning Board and Town Commission in 2008. Mr. & Mrs. Masi were not able to move forward due to funding and were foreclosed. The State passed laws that allowed for an extension to developers who had development approvals but could not move forward. We were before the Town Commission at the regular meeting last week for vote on the extension. Under the Town code section 30- 21(g)3 and 4, requires the request for extension to come before the Board. The developers did not take title until this past November. The main thrust of your code is to give a good faith indication that they are good developers. This is the first indication as purchasers of the property they saw what had been • previously approved and decided to use the same plan. The second indication is that it is the same envelope, massing, height, and setbacks. One of the reasons that the Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes Monday, May 20, 2013 Page 6 of 10 economy went so badly for developers in the 2009 era, in retrospect, it was ludicrous • to put units on the market that were 4,000 to 5,000 square feet. The building is the same dimensions; they just made two units out of one unit, which will be 2,500 sq. ft. and is marketable. Other items in the code that need to be considered is if there were any changes to the comprehensive plan and the zoning code, which there have been none. Are there any third party efforts that would mitigate or interfere with the construction of this building and there are none. The market appears to be coming back. We think that the units for 2,500 sq. ft. will sell under the current pricing trends. Under the Code, the Commission can grant an extension for up to 12 months. Upon approval, we bring in a host of specialists, so a year will bring an expeditious process. I have a memorandum from former Town Manager Dale Sugerman to the Town Commission on November 3, 2008, where he gives the opinion that this project should be approved. Building Official William Kramer sent a letter to Mr. Sugerman regarding this project. We are hopeful that this project is seen as a welcome back because we have heard from the current neighbors that they like this building. There are a few minor aesthetic changes. If you do not approve the extension, it will take about two plus years from the start of construction to complete this project. This developer is innocent; the property was purchased and they were prepared to build. The reason we ask for the granting of the extension is that they were not at fault. Member Golding — You mentioned that the property was previously foreclosed. How do we know that the current developer has the finances to move forward? Attorney Kirschner — This developer is not under contract subject to a due diligence period. • This property was not purchased on spec; they will have to get construction financing. Nobody builds out of pocket and in order to get a construction loan, there needs to be approved plans. Member Golding — They bought the land with cash? Attorney Kirschner — Yes. Chair Stern — If the Planning Board approves the extension, you will need to go back to the Town Commission, correct? Attorney Kirschner — Under your Code, it is under the sole province of the Town Commission to grant extensions and the applicant is to come to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Vice Chair Mendelson — If you are looking at New York City or Miami, larger units are selling. It is an economic decision of yours. However, there are seven more units and more parking is a different project in my estimation. I think it's the Town Commission's responsibility to look at the new ramifications of traffic and the amount of people in the area. If I were on the Town Commission, I would want to look at the new project. Attorney Kirschner — I have engaged in real estate in Boca Raton, Delray Beach and Boynton Beach and we are finding that our marketing trend advice is to the contrary. You are being asked to vote on the site plan and the units are not a part of the approval process. Under the code, the developer could have built 27 units but they are only building 22. Your code does not require a traffic study. We are under the limit of 27 units. Please stay within the scope of your code mandated review. I would ask you not to delay the project for $1,000.00 in fees • because you will have a property remain barren for another two years. Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes Monday, May 20, 2013 Page 7 of 10 • Vice Chair Mendelson — What I understand our authority is — is to make a recommendation. All I am saying is that you could have built 27 units, but that is not what was approved. It seems to me that you went through your six steps of approval for 15 units. I think that those six steps should see 22 units not 15. Attorney Kirschner — If we begin this process from the start, it could take two plus years, so please do not punish this developer. Member Rajsky — What is the financial benefit to the developer for the work that has already been done? Attorney Kirschner — The prior developer prepared a set of plans. Gary Cohen, Developer — There is not much of a savings. All this has done is save a couple of months in regards to time. The capital outlay to this stage would be the same. The physical property needs more work due to old pilings and footings that are rusted. Member Mart — We are here to grant an extension for a year; however, there are changes to the original approved plans. Mathieu Picard, Kobi Karp Architecture, 2915 Biscayne Blvd. — Overall the aesthetics remain very similar to what was previously approved. As mentioned, the footprint, ingress /egress, and access to the garage remains the same. We brought the architecture to a more contemporary fashion maintaining the same massing. The building is now white and we removed some of the ornamentation around the building by simplifying the railing. The roof lines remained the same. Member Clark — Are the pools community or private? Mr. Picard — Those are private pools for the units on the corners of the building. Chair Stern — Is there a community pool? Mr. Picard — The community pool is on the west side of the property. Vice Chair Mendelson — Is that the way those pools were approved? Mr. Picard — Yes. Member Svens= — According to the plans that I reviewed, there is an indication that on certain floors units can be combined. Is that a part of the options available if sold as such? Mr. Picard — Yes, if it is sold as such. Member Svenstrup — There is a possibility that rather than there being 22 units, there could be 20. Could that option be available on each floor level to combine units? Mr. Picard — Yes. Public Comments: Bill Gross, 3210 S. Ocean Blvd. — Is there enough room in the side setbacks for a fire truck? Boris Grandison, Kobi Karp Architecture, 2915 Biscayne Blvd. — We will have to assume that the Fire Department reviewed this. They usually require 20 feet Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes - Monday, May 20, 2013 Page 8 of 10 to circumvent and go around the property but with the unit layout they typically need • to access the front of the building. Mr. Gross — It looks like there is 10 feet to the property line. Mr. Grandison — Typically the Fire Department would access the building from the front. At the time of approval, we would have to assume that the Fire Department approved the plans. Building Official — To my knowledge the Fire Department has not reviewed the plans. Originally these were presented to the Town for variance approval. They have not been checked for the technical requirements of the code. If the plans are approved, then they will be sent to the Fire Department for approval then back to the Building Department for review but 20 feet is certainly enough access for a fire truck. I do not see on the plans a road that goes around to the back of the building. Typically fires are attacked from the front of the building. The building will be fully sprinkled and fire connections throughout the building and roof. Mr. Gross — The developer mentioned that he bought the site for cash, assuming that there isn't a contingency subject to approval; my concern is that I have been living next to the building for 17 years and it has been flipped many times. Attorney Kirschner — The approval that was granted was a development order that stated the developer could move forward to the other approvals. We are asking for an extension of a development order, which is a pass to go to the Building Department to submit the construction drawings. If you do not give approval, the property will languish. It • will take two plus years for the developer to start from scratch. The developer is saying to you — we bought the property, we like the plans, we are ready to build. Mr. Gross — I think the nearby buildings want some assurance that the property will be a new building. Attorney Kirschner — As we sit now, we cannot put a shovel in the ground without an extension. The plan is to move forward with this project. Mr. Gross — What about adding language that the extension is subject to a penalty if the property is flipped? Attorney Kirschner — That is illegal. If we do not deliver a permit in 12 months, the penalty is that we do not get to build this project. Member Rajsky — As a point of clarification, we are here today to recommend the granting of the extension. If approved, the plans go to the building department for review. What is the next level of approval? Attorney Kirschner — If the extension is approved, then the construction plans are given to the Building Department for review and approval. Attorney Rubin — It goes to construction. The plans do not need further review by the Planning Board or Town Commission, at this point. Tom Myer, Villa Costa, 3210 S. Ocean Blvd. — It is ugly from my perspective in the state that it is in today. There is rust, sometimes the grass is cut, and the mangroves are not maintained. I am encouraged that the development of the property will be an Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes Monday, May 20, 2013 Page 9 of 10 advantage to the whole community as a tax base source. We are anxious to see something happen. Make your recommendation to the Town Commission to grant the approval for one year this one time only. MOTION: Member Clark moved to make a recommendation to the Town Commission to approve the request for variance and development approval granted to prior owner for the property located at 3200 S. Ocean Blvd. Member Svenstrup seconded the motion. Roll Call: Member Clark — Yes Member Svenstrup — Yes Member Mart — Yes Member Raj sky — No Member Golding — No Vice Chair Mendelson — No Chair Stern — Yes Motion carried 4/3. • ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Stern called for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 a.m. MOTION: Member Svenstrun moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 a.m. Member Rajsky seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. APPROVED: Carol Stern, Chair Ilyne endelson, Vice Chair Ronald Clark, Aoard Member Step en G g, Member ar art, Board Member Ronald Raj sky, Board Member Planning Board Special Meeting Minutes Monday, May 20, 2013 Paize 10 of 10 William Svenstrup, Board Me er TOWN SEAL ATTESTED: J )a-LL-t"( (CIA&O-1 Valerie Oakes, CMC, Deputy Town Clerk Date: - 7 - 10 - 13 •