Loading...
2020.02.13_PB_Minutes_Regular TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Town Hall / Commission Chambers Date: February 13, 2020 3614 South Ocean Boulevard Time: 9:30 a.m. Highland Beach, Florida 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson David Axelrod called the Planning Board Meeting to order at 9:30 a.m. He asked all present to please silence their cell phones/devices. 2. PRESENT UPON ROLL CALL: Member Ilyne Mendelson Member Brian DeMoss Member Eric Goldenberg Member Harry Adwar Member John Boden Chairperson David Axelrod Town Attorney Leonard Rubin Deputy Town Clerk Beverly Wright Absent: Member Roger Brown 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Board Members led the Pledge of Allegiance. 4. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA: Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any additions, deletions or corrections to the Agenda. Hearing none he asked for a motion to accept the agenda. MOTION: Member Adwar moved to accept the Agenda as presented. Member Goldenberg seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. 5. SWEARING IN OF THE PUBLIC Chairperson Axelrod asked those who were giving testimony to please stand and raise their right hands to be sworn in. Deputy Town Clerk Beverly Wright swore in those who were giving testimony, during the meeting. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 15 February 13, 2020 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chairperson Axelrod advised that public comments would be limited to five minutes per speaker and if a comment was related to subjects that would be presented under new business, to waive that time and give comment then. He asked if there were any public comments to be made and there were none. 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: A. January 9, 2020 Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any corrections to the January 9, 2020 minutes. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve the minutes. MOTION: Member Adwar moved to accept the minutes as presented. Member Goldberg seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 6 to 0. 8. OLD BUSINESS: A. APPLICATION NO. 19-0699 (MARK HUNLEY, CHARETTE INTERNATIONAL) CONTINUANCE FOR FINAL APPROVAL APPLICATION BY MARK HUNLEY OF CHARETTE INTERNATIONAL ARCHITECTURE FOR APPROVAL TO RENOVATE A 4 UNIT BUILDING TO A 3 UNIT BUILDING LOCATED AT 4200 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD - (TOWN PLANNER ALLEN). Chairperson Axelrod read the item into record. Town Planner Ingrid Allen, advised that hard copies of the December 12, 2019 Staff Report, prepared by previous Town Planner Mary McKinney, had been left out of the agenda backup material, and that copies of the report had been left on the Dais for each of the Board members review. She stated that at the December 12, 2019 Planning Board meeting, the Board had approved to continue the item and had requested that the applicant provide landscape and drainage plans, to correct the raise and elevation, if deficient, and to adjust the parking configuration as necessary to meet Town Code. She advised that at the January 9, 2020 Planning Board meeting, the applicant had not submitted the plans prior to the distribution of the agenda packet; therefore, the item was continued. She said that subsequently, the applicant had submitted the drainage and landscape plans. That the plans were reviewed by Staff and were determined to be consistent with the Town’s Code of Ordinance. She clarified that the parking configuration was that the applicant was required to provide six parking spaces, there were three units, and that Town Code required two parking spaces per unit and that the applicant had conformed to Code. As part of the applicants submitted drainage plan, the applicants proposed to replace the current asphalt parking area with pavers to allow for both cohesive design and proper drainage. She advised that the proposed was not in the December 12th Staff Report that it was added. She said she felt that it was a nice addition. She asked the Board if there were any questions and that she would be happy to address them, if any. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 15 February 13, 2020 Chairperson Axelrod asked if any members had any ex parte communications to mention. There were none. Town Planner Allen exhibited the current landscape plan as it existed. She pointed out that landscape west of the parking area was being completed and that the applicants were proposing what was depicted in the exhibit as shown, which was all new. Chairperson Axelrod asked the Board Members if they had any questions for Town Planner Allen. Member DeMoss asked if the pavers go from the parking lot to the street? Town Planner Allen advised that she believed the pavers were just right up to the entrance. Member Mendelson advised that the modified plan was very nice and was worth waiting for. Member Boden made an inaudible comment. Mark Hunley advised that the site and retention calculations were done assuming they were not pervious and were impervious material. He said that the actual selection of exactly what pavers were there was left to the owners’ discretion. He advised that the drawings spoke for themselves and that he was happy they had the opportunity to sit down and work through this with the owners. He said the owners had been very forthcoming on making sure the standards of the Town and the Board were met. Member DeMoss thanked the applicants for their patience and wished them good luck. Member Goldenberg thanked the applicants for complying with the Board’s requirements. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there was anyone from the public that wished to make comments on the project. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve Item 8B. MOTION: Member Mendelson made a motion to approve Item 8B. Member DeMoss seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 6 to 0. B. PROPOSED ORDINANCE ALLOWING ACCESSORY MARINE FACILITIES (RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL) AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF HIGHLAND BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 30 “ZONING CODE” SECTION 30-68, “SUPPLEMENTAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS” TO ALLOW ACCESSORY MARINE STRUCTURES TO REMAIN ON PROPERTY AFTER A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED OR REMOVED; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND CODIFICATION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 15 February 13, 2020 Chairperson Axelrod read the item into record. Town Planner Allen advised that Item 8B-3 in the Agenda Packet, was not the correct Agenda Summary for the proposed amendment and that at the December 12th Planning Board meeting, there were two Ordinances brought before the Board, which were mixed up. She advised that the correct Agenda Summary handed out to the Board today, was the correct Agenda Summary. She also advised that at the December 12th meeting, the Board had tabled the item and provided the following comments, which were documented in the Planning Report and had been incorporated in the Draft Ordinance via the bold underline. She read the subsequent into record as: Accessory Remain Structures that remain are to be in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Town Code and provide an extension to the proposed Certificate of Occupancy (CO) four-year deadline, not to exceed four additional years. She said that there was some conversation among the Board that if there were some sort of recession or if someone had financial issues, they would have an opportunity to extend it. She said that is how the provision came about. She advised that Staff had also included an additional provision of section 30-68 V1F, which clarifies that while the Accessory Marine Structure may remain based on the conditions provided, it may not be utilized by the property owner or any other person until a CO was issued for new principal structure. She said that Staff also made a non-substantive revision to section 30-68 V1D, to reflect that the six-foot reference pertaining to the chain-link fence referred to height. She said that also at the December 2019 meeting, the Board asked Staff to research what other municipalities were doing in terms of their Accessory Marine Structures. She advised that Staff researched several municipal codes, to include the Cities of Boca Raton and Fort Lauderdale, and the Towns of Manalapan, North Palm Beach and Ocean Ridge. A list of all applicable provisions was compiled depicting whether a fence on vacant lots were required. The findings are as follows: • City of Boca Raton had something called dock lots. Lots that are on vacant plots that had been deemed unsuitable for single family development; however, a dock was allowed there, but required conditional approval by the Town’s Council. As for fencing on a vacant lot, fencing was not required. However, if one had a dock lot, requirements to have a four-foot landscaped yard along all street frontages, required a 20-foot landscaped side yard. • City of Fort Lauderdale had a very extensive Code. No docks may be constructed unless a principle building exists. Fences on vacant lots are permitted, but not required. The fence should be non-opaque with opening of at least 10-foot wide. • Town of Manalapan was that if the principal structure was demolished or removed, then the use of the Accessory Structure shall be terminated until a new principal structure was established on the lot (she said that this was similar to what was being proposed in Highland Beach). An Accessory Marina Structure could exist, but it could not be used until a CO was obtained. • Town of North Palm Beach Code is that existing docks, piers, and seawalls adjacent to a formerly develop vacant lot may remain subject to the following conditions for docks and piers: The use of a dock shall be limited to one vessel. The dock or peer shall only be used for the personal enjoyment of the lot owner and shall not be rented or leased to any third party or Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 15 February 13, 2020 used for any commercial purpose. No sewer, electrical services to the dock shall be permitted. No live aboard vessel. The upland portion of the lot shall not be used for storage parking or any other Accessory Use or structure until the principal use of the primary structure is completed and access to the dock or pier may be restricted. As for fencing, it is allowed, but not a requirement. The fence must be non-opaque and with galvanized metal. • Town of Ocean Ridge provision is that no boat or vessel shall be parked, stored or left unattended on any vacant lot or parcel within the Town. Parking of boats or vessels shall only be on a lot, which there exist a principal dwelling. Nothing was found in the Code that addressed fencing. Member Mendelson asked Town Planner Allen to explain how the time period worked? And, asked if the extension was for four years with an additional four years? Town Planner Allen advised that the property owner would have an opportunity to request an extension of no more than an additional four years. Member Mendelson asked if the Town had anything similar to Manalapan, not being able to rent it out to anyone? Town Planner Allen advised that she believed the Town’s Code already prevented that. Town Attorney Rubin advised that the Code already prohibits that. Member Mendelson advised that she still had a problem with how long it is. She said that she would not go eight years that it was too much; that it should be less time. She said that four years and a two-year extension would be okay, but eight years was too long. Member DeMoss expressed his displeasure for the exception conditions in Item D; the 6-foot fence. He said that other communities did not have it and that he had seen a place on Bel Lido with a nice wrought iron type fence and a demolished house where sod had been put down and the ugly chain-linked fence had been removed. He said that no trespassing signs should be put up, not fences. Town Planner Allen responded that at the December 12th meeting, a few Board members had asked if a fence was necessary and that the previous Town Planner’s response to the Board was that people were parking on vacant lots and that typically, when a house was being redeveloped, that trucks and others parked on the vacant lot. Additionally, she said, the minutes from the Town Commission meeting, where the subject was initially discussed, some Commissioners liked the fence and others did not. She said it is really what the Planning Board preferred for recommendation to Town Commission. Town Attorney Rubin discussed other possibilities and stated that the goal was not to have parking. He advised of the possibility of some sort of alternative fencing that would be more decorative and less visually unappealing and that the applicant could come before the Board to get approval for some sort of alternative or whatever methodology the Board would be using to prevent parking on the site. Member Goldenberg advised that maybe the verbiage could read, “property protected from trespassing, so it could be hedges, a wrought iron fence” or something of that nature. He said that concerning the structure for four years and an additional four years, that after four years, the structure would need to be replaced or worked on anyway. He said that if the structure sat vacant for four years, a boat could not be put on it without it being rebuilt. He said that he did not see where an extension would be needed for four years and that an applicant could come back to the Board... that eight-years is like a lifetime for some people. He said the four-years would be sufficient. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 15 February 13, 2020 Member Boden asked if the issue of fences belonged with the dock issue or had it been expanded from the dock issue into other issues about vacant lots? He said that originally, this all had to do with docks and that he was concerned that the water was being muddy. He advised that fences are applicable with other areas of the ordinance and that if the Board stayed with docks, to just stay with docks and to let fences go where they belong. Member Adwar advised that other Board members had covered what he was going to talk about. Member Mendelson advised that muddying the water was an interested point, but she did see a distinction of why there is a fence. She said that it is not only parking on a vacant lot, but that the Board had said that Code said it cannot be rented out and is only used for the person who owns it. She said it should be clarified somehow that it may be a hedge or a sign. She said that she did not want people thinking it was a public dock or that they could just enjoy the dock, which is why it was relevant to the dock issue. She advised that the Board should figure out some way to make it clear that a dock is off limits to anyone, but the owner. She said if not a fence, it could be something else. Town Planner Allen advised that under letter “E” under number one, it does say no parking will be allowed on the property and that at least two no trespassing signs must be mounted to the chain- link fence surrounding the property and that going forward, the Board might want to tweak it a little bit. Member Mendelson stated that maybe with the no trespassing verbiage, to mention something about the docks being private only. Chairperson Axelrod read the following email from Member Brown into record: “I am sorry that I am unable to attend the meeting on the 13th. I did look at the documents submitted for the meeting and I have a comment on Proposed Ordinance Agenda Item 8B-2. This Proposed Ordinance allows for Marines Structures to remain, when a home is demolished and cannot be used by a homeowner without a CO on a newly built property. I am in favor of this regulation with a change of the terminology. The homeowner may choose to demolish the home on the site and leave the property vacant that is grassed and still utilize the Marine Facilities. Why does a homeowner need to erect a 6-foot chain-link fence with screening and not be able to use the Marines Facility? Why can't a homeowner erect a fence protecting the property similar to the fence on the home at the end of Intracoastal Drive, leave the property vacant and utilize Marine Facilities? I would propose that we change the language to allow for the use of Marine Facilities, post demolition and no structures planned and approved decorated fence shall be erected.” Chairperson Axelrod response to Member Brown’s email was liability to the Town for allowing people to constantly walk across the demolished area in order to get to their docks, could be very dangerous and that he highly recommended against it. He said that as for the fences, the Town would have to depend on the police, if no parking and trespassing signs were erected. He advised that some sort of fence should be erected. He stated that the liability for the Town would be if lots were left opened and someone tripped on the lot, the Town would be liable (crosstalk/interrupted speaking...). Town Attorney Rubin advised that he did not believe it would be the Town’s liability. He said that it could be someone’s liability and that it could happen for sure. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 of 15 February 13, 2020 Member Goldenberg gave an opinion of an adjacent homeowner’s point of view in that a green 6- foot covered fence did not help the community at all. He said he thought if it were worded so that some sort of protective barrier was put up, that would cover it. He agreed with Member DeMoss in that a wrought iron fence was much prettier than a chain-link fence or having something to prevent parking or anyone walking in the area... As per using the facility, even by the owner, he said they would need a CO and that what the Board was saying was that a lot could not be utilized before a primary structure was on it. Member Boden questioned if an owner of a property who moved somewhere else in the neighborhood who wanted to keep a boat on a vacant lot or lift was not allowed or was an Ordinance... Town Attorney Rubin advised that an owner could not use the vacant property (crosstalk/interrupted speaking…). Member Mendelson advised that the Board should try to get what was being discussed to some sort of amendment or some sort of instructions, so that Staff could go back and revise it. She proposed the time be shorted, that she liked four year and would be willing to agree to six, but preferred four, and that she liked the requirement/criteria that the fence looks nice. Chairperson Axelrod asked if an amendment should be proposed. Town Attorney Rubin advised to take the language, within 60 days after demolition of the principal structure, the property owner should submit a plan for approval to the Planning Board to prevent parking on the lot through the use of fencing and or landscaping. The owner would come before the Board and the Board would get to see what kind of fencing or landscaping... He said the goal was to prevent parking and to review the aesthetics of it. Member Mendelson ask if it was clear that it was at the Board’s discretion? Town Attorney Rubin advised, yes. It would be for the Board’s approval and that the goal was to prevent parking. He said that there should be some latitude to allow for something a lot less visually unappealing. Member Mendelson advised that she wanted to make sure that it was clear, so that people would understand the aspect of parking, prettier and cost. She said that she just wanted it clarified that it was within the rights. Town Attorney Rubin advised that it should maybe read, to prevent parking and to promote the aesthetics of the Town; that way, it would be known that it is for parking prevention and aesthetics consideration. Chairperson Axelrod advised that there are currently two changes, a fence closure and time. He asked if an amendment should be made or if it should be sent back to Commission. Member Goldenberg recommended an amendment, so that the Board would not have to wait an additional month for approval. Member Mendelson stated that she did not believe the Board could come up with an amendment for the ordinance, she said she believed that Staff had to write it properly (crosstalk/interrupted speaking…). Town Attorney Rubin advised that it was up to the Board. He said that the verbiage that he had read in that effect, he believed would be fine, would be drafted and be presented to Commission. Chairperson Axelrod asked for a motion on the item. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 of 15 February 13, 2020 Member Boden asked if there was a particular situation, at present, that was causing a huge problem that needed fixing immediately? Member Goldenberg advised that he believed that in a corner property in Bel Lido, there was a structure, a lift on the property and that as of right now, it is not being used. He advised that the Board wanted to ensure that it did not get used. Chairperson Axelrod asked Town Attorney Rubin if the amendment could be used? Town Attorney Rubin advised of a move to approve the subject of amending the language that he read earlier (to prevent parking and to promote the aesthetics of the Town) and to change the four years to two for the extension, if it is the consensus of the Board. Member Goldenberg asked why and extension was needed at all. He indicated four years was sufficient enough time to make a decision. Member Mendelson concurred with Member Goldenberg’s statement. Member Bolden advised that the extension was needed because the Board wanted to be able to read what was being voted on. Chairperson Axelrod open public comments and advised that after public comments, the Board would vote on rather an amendment was needed or if it would be passed back to Staff for modifications. Douglas Hillman of Dalton Place stated the discussion was about vacant lots that were on the canal, with docks. He advised that at the last meeting, one of the issues discussed was owner beautification/landscaping on lots, with appropriate protection. He said he believed that it would be a nice addition to the community and it would also take care of parking issues. He asked why it mattered if it was 4, 10 or 20 years, and why it would be a problem for owners to use lots for boats. He said he sees this as a positive. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any other public comments. There were none. Member Goldenberg advised that the property was beautiful and agreed that the subject was discussed. He advised that a CO was needed, that a principal structure was needed on the property and there would be trespassing. He said there would be cars parked on the street because the cars could not be parked anywhere else. He said that he did agree with Mr. Hillman in that the property could be left vacant for an appreciation value of 20 years. Chairperson Axelrod advised that decorative landscaping could become costly and that it should not be forced on the community. He said that sod was already mentioned in the text. He asked if it should be brought back with changes made; what would the changes be and if it should be an amendment, so that it could be forwarded to Commission for their conclusion. Member Mendelson advised that she was looking at the City of Boca Raton’s chart and it appeared as though you could have a lot, but you had to go back to the City for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to change it back to a house. She asked if her account was accurate. Town Planner Allen advised, no; that dock lots were properties that had been deemed unsuitable for single families that houses could not be put on and that it was just a dock lot. Member Mendelson asked if that needed to be changed, could it be done with CUP? Town Attorney Rubin and Town Planner Allen said, no. Town Planner Allen advised that the CUP was for the actual dock lots. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 15 February 13, 2020 Member Mendelson asked if the City had already deemed it unsuitable and that in no event that they could ever put a house there and that if somebody wanted to keep their lot opened forever, what could be said is, for 3 or 4 years, you can figure out what you want to do. If you want to build a new house and get your CO you could do that. She said that after that, instead of giving an extension, it could say, there is a new classification of property and it has to be decided that a house is not being put back or not being sold, it is being kept opened and in order to do that, it must be landscaped like a park. She said since people would be unsure of what they wanted to do that to ask them to spend money on landscaping when looking for buyers or making decisions to build a new house, it would not be feasible. She discussed zoning changes (inaudible…). Chairperson Axelrod asked Member Mendelson how she felt about sending it back to Staff or going forward with an amendment? Member Mendelson said that she would agree to their comments and send it back to Staff to have a nice Staff written Ordinance for the next meeting. Member DeMoss said that he agreed with it. Member Goldenberg said that he agreed to just move forward with it as an amendment. Member Adwar said that he agreed (inaudible). Member Boden said that his concern was that the Board was delving into details that were not require. He said that there were lots of Town regulations to control appearance. He said that the Board was tying landscape and additional stuff into the dock language, when they were specifically asked to look at the use of a dock on a vacant lot. He requested that the Board back up and rely on regulations to take care of the issues and stick to the one question asked of them. Chairperson Axelrod advised that there were two issues; whether or not a fence should or should not be erected and timing extension. He said he was attempting to get an amendment so it could be sent back to Commission, that there would be two readings and that Commission had the ability to change the wording. He said that putting this off would result in several months hiatus and that a recommendation was needed for the amendment so the Board could possibly vote on it. MOTION: Member Mendelson made a motion to approve and amend the Ordinance by making it four years with no extension and within 60 days after demolition of the principal structure, the property owners are to submit a plan for approval by the Planning Board, to prevent parking on the lot and promote the aesthetics of the Town to the use of fencing and or landscaping materials (Town Attorney Rubin). Member Goldenberg seconded the motion, which carried, 5 to 1, with Member Boden dissenting. 9. NEW BUSINESS: A. APPLICATION NO. 19-0008 (FRANCO & ASSSOCIATES/DONNA NERO) APPLICATION BY FRANCO & ASSOCIATES REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR A NEW ROOF TERRACE WITH SPIRAL STAIRCASE LOCATED AT 11 OCEAN PLACE - (TOWN PLANNER ALLEN). Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 10 of 15 February 13, 2020 Chairperson Axelrod read the item into record. Town Planner Allen shared a public comment dated February 10th, into record advising the Board that a copy of a letter had been place on the Dais for them. She advised that the applicant was requesting to modify the hip roof of an existing rear yard covered patio to create a new roof terrace with a spiral staircase. She said that the existing building footprint would not change pursuant to section 30-39 of the Town's Code of Ordinances. She said the applicant’s request was considered a major modification to an existing single-family building and that major modifications, according to Code, are to be reviewed in the same manner as the original structure or use as required by the Zoning Code, which is Chapter 30. She said that pursuant to section 30-42.5 of the Code of Ordinances, all Federal, State, County and other applicable government approvals and permits must be obtained before submitting the final Building Permit Plans to the Building Department. And that the applicant had submitted correspondence from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection indicating that so long as no changes to the structure’s foundations are being made, the proposed requests is exempt from a FDP Permit. She said that Staff had reviewed the plans for setback compliance and determined that it complied with the setback provisions of section 30-64 of the Code. She said that following approval by the Planning Board, the applicant was required to obtain a Building Permit from the Town, prior to construction. Chairperson Axelrod asked if the board had any ex parte communications or question for the Town Planner. Town Planner Allen displayed an illustration rendering to give the Board a better perspective of what was being discussed. She explained about the existing rear patio and that the applicant was connecting it, adding a roof terrace and advised that the top could be accessed. Chairperson Axelrod asked if the applicant wanted to make any statements. Town Attorney Rubin asked unidentified male if he had been sworn in? Deputy Town Clerk Beverly Wright swore in the unidentified male. Member Mendelson inquired about the type of material the trellis was made out of? Unidentified male advised that they were not designing the trellis; that the trellis was being designed by others, but it would be either be wood or metal… aluminum. Member Mendelson asked Town Planner Allen if it mattered what material the trellis was made out of? Town Attorney Rubin asked the unidentified male to state his name. Unidentified male advised Andres Montero. Member Mendelson advised that she was particularly interested in the trellis, as the ones at Toscana were not doing very well and that she wanted to know what made it work better. Town Planner Allen advised that the details for the trellis were in the plans. As for the site plan approval, no; but when it goes to building permit; the trellis would have to comply with the Florida Building Code (FBC), including any type of wind provision. Member Mendelson asked if the FBC addressed that? Town Attorney Rubin said that it addressed wind loads as long as whatever material selected met wind loads (inaudible/crosstalk/interrupted speaking…). Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 11 of 15 February 13, 2020 Chairperson Axelrod asked the Board if there were any other questions of the applicant or public comments. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve Item 9A. MOTION: Member Goldenberg made a motion to approved Item 9A as presented. Member DeMoss seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 6 to 0. B. APPLICATION NO. 19-0009 (SMITH ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC./BRIAN KESSLER) APPLICATION BY SMITH ARCHITECTURAL GROUP, INC. REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR A NEW TWO-STORY, 16,029 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND GUEST HOUSE WITH POOL AND SPA LOCATED AT 2475 SOUTH OCEAN BOULEVARD (TOWN PLANNER ALLEN). Chairperson Axelrod read the item into record and asked the Board if they had any ex parte communications? There were no ex parte communications, he opened public hearing. Town Planner Allen read into record that the applicant was requesting approval to construct a new two-story building, 16,029 square feet, single family residence and guesthouse with a pool and spa. She read section 30-67 of the Town's Code, a Single-Family Detached Resident, as well as an Accessory Dwelling Unit Guesthouse is permitting the Residential Single-Family (RS) Estate, and Residential Estate (RE) Zoning Districts. She advised that the request was in compliance with the Development Regulations for the RE Zoning District found in section 30-64 A, and that the applicant had received a permit for construction of the proposed, a project from the Florida Department of Environment of Protection, permit number 1324. She advised that Staff recommended approval of the proposed site plan was subject to the following conditions: • Pursuant to the definition of Dwelling Unit found in section 30-131 of the Town Code, permanent provisions for cooking shall be provided for the guesthouse prior to the issuance of the Building Permit. • Pursuant to section 30-68 J2 of the Town’s Code, a Single-Family Residential Dwelling shall provide at least a 25-foot white access to a public or private right away. She advised that following the approval by the Planning Board and prior to the initiation of construction, the applicant was required to obtain a building permit from the Town's Building Department, and that construction must substantially be completed within two years of the Planning Board’s approval. She advised that on the site plan there were different floor plan renderings of the elevations, the actual elevations, and the landscape plan. Chairperson Axelrod asked if the plans were being presented to accept with conditions? Town Planner Allen advised, yes. Chairperson Axelrod asked the Board if they had any comments? Member Adwar had no comments. Member Boden had no comments. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 15 February 13, 2020 Member Mendelson asked Town Planner Allen what were the conditions? Town Planner Allen advised they were all listed on the third page of the Planning Report that had been read into records earlier and that section two said recommendations. Member Mendelson stated it was for cooking and asked if there was anything presently on the property. Town Planner Allen advised that the property was vacant and sodded. Member DeMoss asked Town Planner Allen if the 35 feet height included the roof? Chairperson Axelrod asked Town Planner Allen to explain NAVGD and NAVD? Town Planner Allen advised that section 30-131 of the Zoning Code provided a definition of the building height, which read as follows: The vertical distance between the finish floor elevation; either a flat roof, which is the highest point of any flat roof associate with the structure, or a pitched roof, which is the reality of the applicant’s roof. She said that it is a midpoint between the bottom of the ease and the highest point of the highest roof ridge or peak associated with structure and that the building height at the midpoint of the pitch roof was 57.50 NABD. She advised that the finish for elevation, was 22.5, deducted it is 35 feet, which is the maximum building height for the particular Zoning District. Chairperson Axelrod asked if the garage was deducted. Town Attorney Rubin and Town Planner Allen advised that it was about the finished floor elevation, which is right at the bottom. Town Attorney Rubin said that A202 is the sheet that showed the measurements; the finished floor and the midpoint of roof. Town Planner Allen asked the Board to turn to sheet A202 of the Agenda Packet to see the NABD line; she advised it was in the middle of the pitched roof, that it said 57.5 and at the bottom was the 22.50 finished floor elevation. She reiterated that deducting the two figures equaled 35 feet. Chairperson Axelrod stated that some of the site setbacks seemed to be a little bit short. Town Planner Allen advised that she reviewed the site setbacks and the applicant was consistent. She advised that in September 2019 (crosstalk/interrupted speaking…) it was reviewed and was consistent likewise. Chairperson Axelrod asked who the owner of the lateral concrete wall was and was the wall on the owner’s property in relation to the setback, etc.? Town Planner Allen advised that the wall was on the applicant’s property. Chairperson Axelrod said that the setbacks were set from the wall to the building. He said that if the wall was thick, theoretically, the setback should be from the property line. Town Planner Allen and Town Attorney Rubin advised that he was correct. Town Planner Allen stated that she reviewed the items the applicants were putting in and they met… Chairperson Axelrod advised that his concern was not about the items; but the actual setback. He said that he understood things like the air conditioning or the pool and that was perfectly fine. He reiterated that he did not know how thick the concrete wall was and that the setback showed 12. He said depending on how thick the wall was, it could be more. Town Planner Allen advised that the setback was from the property line and that she could have the applicant come up to discuss it further. Member Mendelson asked if the wall went the entire side or was it just a small wall. Chairperson Axelrod advised that he believed it went up to the line of the building. Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 13 of 15 February 13, 2020 Member DeMoss asked if the drainage runoff was properly taken care of? Town Planner Allen advised, yes, that the drainage plan was reviewed by Staff and by CAP Government. She said they provided a comment that would be dealt with at that Building Permit stage. She said it was regarding… Chairperson Axelrod said that he believed the drainage to be excellent. Town Planner Allen advised that for site plan approval; the drainage plan was sufficient (crosstalk/interrupted speaking…). Chairperson Axelrod asked the Board if they had any further comments. Member Goldenberg said that his only concern was that previous Boards had not taken it into consideration and that there had been some flooding issues. Chairperson Axelrod said he was impressed by the drainage presentation (crosstalk/interrupted speaking…). Town Planner Allen advised that CAP Government comments were to provide swell retention area on the right away adjacent to South Ocean Blvd. She said that the comment was Building Permit related and that the applicant would need to address it at that level. Chairperson Axel asked if there was exfiltration near the building? Town Planner Allen said, yes. Chairperson Axelrod asked if there were any public comments. Hearing none, he asked for a motion to approve Item 9B with conditions. MOTION: Member Goldenberg made a motion to approve Item 9B with conditions as set forth. Permanent provisions for cooking shall be provided for the guesthouse prior to the issuance of the Building Permit and shall provide at least a 25-foot white access to a public or private right away. Member Mendelson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 6-0. 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chairperson Axelrod read the following announcements into record: Town Hall Closed: February 17, 2020 – in Observance of Presidents’ Day Town Commission Meeting February 18, 2020 (Cancelled) Town Planner Allen advised the Board about a comment that was made at the January 9, 2020 meeting regarding the substance of the Palm Beach County Local Mitigation Strategy Plan, the plan which was adopted by Town Commission on January 7 2020. She said that there was a discussion or comment made by Town Attorney Rubin concerning why the Town should reach out to Palm Beach County to possibly have someone come to a Planning Board meeting to make a courtesy presentation and that the plan had already been adopted. She advised that she had spoken with Mitigation Coordinator Joe Mercurio who said that he would be more than happy to come provide a courtesy presentation at the March 12th Planning Board meeting; however, she did not have any development applications for that meeting date. She said the presentation would possibly be the only item on the agenda. She said that she had also received an email from the Planning Section Manager, which read the Local Mitigation Strategy Program had been in Palm Beach County since 1999 and had been Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes Page 14 of 15 February 13, 2020 adopted by the Town of Highland Beach every five years since. That it is a collaborative effort between the County, all 39 municipalities, as well as very special districts and private nonprofits to identify hazards and to figure out ways to mitigate against those hazards. That the County had absolutely no intention or desire to do planning for another jurisdiction. That at the end of the day, each jurisdiction had to decide what was in their best interest when it came to the actual mitigation of those hazards. That is why the sample template resolution that was adopted by the Commission was sent out to all jurisdictions saying things like, we will consider as all of the municipalities agreeing to consider various forms of mitigation strategies. Consideration by no means says that any of us will actually do it, if it is not in the jurisdictions best interest. Chairperson Axelrod asked if it would be worthwhile to have the presentation made at a Commission meeting in March. Town Planner Allen echoed that the resolution had already been adopted. Member Mendelson advised that she was happy with the email that was read by Town Planner Allen that said all 39 other municipalities signed it, they did not plan to go over heads to do anything and that it had been signed every five years since the beginning of time. She said a presentation was not necessary and asked Town Planner Allen to thank him for his efforts. Town Planner Allen asked the Board if she should move forward with the presentation? Chairperson Axelrod advised that the presentation was not necessary, but if Commission wanted the presentation, it was fine. Member Boden asked about landscaping on roofs of buildings and how it affected heights and the item of docks. He said that he heard that the Town owned lakes down around Bel Lido. He said he brought up submerged land leases and frankly there seemed to be much confusion and a lack of knowledge in whether they were meetings requirements. He requested that the Board put the two items on the agenda for the next Planning Board Meeting. Member Mendelson said that the request sounded fine to her, but before it is discussed, she would like to have, without reading every statue in the town, a presentation by Staff about what exists today on the issues, so that the Board can respond accordingly with their preferences. Member Boden stated that is why having it on the agenda would bring about the presentation. He said that he believed that he and Member Mendelson completely agreed on the issues. Member Mendelson concurred and said that it should be put on the agenda and asked if Staff would be able to get it together for an agenda item next month or if two months was needed to complete the work? She said that it would be a lot of work. Town Planner Allen advised that her recommendation was not next month. Member Mendelson said that she would agree to put the items on the April 2020 Meeting agenda. Chairperson Axelrod recommendation was that Member Boden contact Town Planner Allen to inform her of exactly what he wanted on the Agenda. Member Boden advised that there was not a rush on the items. Town Planner Allen asked if the items would be discussion items. Member Mendelson advised Town Planner Allen that she would present the existing facts of the agenda items and that the Board would discuss them to determine the action taken, if any.