Planning Board August 21, 2012 Meeting Minutes Commission Chambers

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Steven Mayans, Chairperson Gregg Weiss, Vice-Chairperson Charles Jackson, Member Todd McLeod, Alternate Virginia Dominicis, Member Jeffrey Kotzen, Member Keith Spina, Member Keith Williams, Member Rick Greene, Planning Manager Eric Schneider, Principal Planner John Roach, Senior Planner Samuel Thomas, Senior Assistant City Attorney Laura Aral, Board Secretary

MEMBERS ABSENT:

STAFF PRESENT:

I. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL The regular meeting of the Planning Board (PB) was called to order at 6:01 p.m., by Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, in the Commission Chambers on the first floor, 401 Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. Laura Aral, Board Secretary, called the roll and it was determined that a quorum was present. II. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES Mr. Gregg Weiss made a motion to APPROVE the July 17, 2012 minutes. Seconded by Mr. Todd McLeod. Approved 4-0. No opposition. III. REPORT FROM THE PLANNING STAFF Mr. Rick Greene, Planning Manager, presented updates on the cases previously heard by the Board. IV. REMARKS BY THE CHAIRPERSON None.

V. DECLARATION OF EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION None. VI. PUBLIC HEARING A. SWEARING IN OF THE SPEAKERS Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, swore in all of the members of the public and Staff who might wish to speak. B. CONTINUED CASES
Major Amendment, Centrepark Commercial Planned Development Planning Board Case No. 791CC

A request by Harvey E. Oyer, III, of Shutts & Bowen, LLP, on behalf of Centrepark East Holdings, LP, for a Major Amendment to the Centrepark Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to allow governmental office as a permitted use. (The Applicant is requesting a 30day continuance of this case.) Location: The Centrepark CPD, consisting of approximately 40.66 acres, is generally located on the east side of Australian Avenue, south of Interstate 95, within Commission District No. 5 Commission Shannon Materio. Mr. John Roach stated that the Applicant for Planning Board Case No. 791CC is requesting a thirty (30) day continuance of the subject case. He said the request is noted on the Planning Board agenda. Planning Board Case No. 791CC was continued to the October 16, 2012 Planning Board meeting. C. PLANNING BOARD CASES
Class A Special Use Permit Residential Dock, 4901 South Flagler Drive Planning Board Case No. 1619

A request by Donna Isham, of Docks & More Construction Company, on behalf of Kim Farino, for a Class A Special Use Permit to construct a dock accessory to an existing single family residence. Location: The approximately 0.60 acre property is located at 4901 South Flagler Drive, within Commission District No. 5 Commissioner Shanon Materio. Mr. John Roach stated that this case is a request for a Class A Special Use Permit for the property located at 4901 South Flagler Drive. He said the property consists of two (2) parcels one on each side of Flagler Drive and contains a single family home originally built in 1982. He displayed a survey showing the two (2) plots of land: a parcel to the west of Flagler Drive

that contains a single family residence, garage, and pool; and a parcel to the east side that is vacant. He noted that both parcels are owned by the homeowner and are under a single parcel control number. Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant is proposing to construct a dock accessory to the single family residence. He said the proposal includes two (2) mooring slips, one of which will contain a boat lift; there will be a terminal platform with the mooring slip at the end of the platform, and the boat lift to the north; the dock will be 150 feet in length, including the four (4) foot wide walkway and the 8 by 20 terminal platform. He noted that the Applicant has provided a sea grass study which impacted the proposed length and placement of the dock. Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant is requesting several waivers, which he discussed as follows: Waiver #1 Perpendicular Dock: Mr. Roach stated that Section 94-304(e)(1)(c)(6) of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations provides that a dock shall be placed perpendicular to the riparian property line. He said waivers from this regulation have been granted in the past so that a dock may be parallel to the north and south property lines, which reduces its impact on adjacent properties. He said the Applicant is requesting an eighteen (18) degree waiver from the regulation. He explained that a perpendicular dock would encroach on the neighboring property, and would increase the amount of dockage over the existing sea grass. Waiver #2 Maximum Dock Length: Mr. Roach stated that Section 94-304(e)(1)(c)(8) specifies a maximum dock length of one hundred (100) feet. He said constructing the dock within the one hundred (100) foot limit would put most of the mooring activity over the sea grass. Additionally, he said there are concerns about the depth of the waterway within that limit which would not allow for the mooring of vessels; for these reasons, the Applicant is requesting the additional dock length. Mr. Roach said both the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and the Army Corps of Engineers have approved the dock as proposed in order to reduce the impact on the sea grass found on the property. He noted that the lengths of existing docks in the subject area range from approximately forty-two (42) feet to ninetyfour (94) feet, but he pointed out that the way Flagler Drive cuts back as it goes south, a 150foot dock at the subject location will not project out any closer to the waterway or channel than some of the existing docks in the area. Waiver #3 Middle One Third: Mr. Roach stated that Section 94-304(e)(1)(c)(9) provides that a dock shall be located in the middle one third of the property. He said the Applicant is asking to shift the dock 186 to the south in order to reduce its impact on the sea grass. He noted that in the two (2) small areas where the proposed dock would cross over the sea grass, the Applicant will construct the dock from a grated material that will allow sunlight to penetrate through the decking and provide sunlight to the grasses below. Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant has received regulatory approvals from the both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. He said based on the finding that the application complies with Sections 94-36(e)(3) through (5), Section

94-304(e)(2) and Section 94-273(a)(2), Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Planning Board Case No. 1619, with the following conditions: 1. The dock shall not be used for any commercial purpose. 2. Prior to a Certificate of Completion for the proposed dock, all mooring slips shall be provided with appropriate connections for potable water and electrical service. 3. In order to reduce the impact on the property located to the south, there shall be no mooring of vessels and no portion of a moored vessel shall extend south of the proposed dock. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Mr. Weiss asked if it would be beneficial to locate the terminal platform more to the south in order to avoid crossing over the sea grass. Mr. Roach responded that the proposed location has been approved by the DEP. Additionally, he said Staff would have concerns about the possible impacts of locating the platform closer to the property to the south. Mr. Weiss asked if the Applicant will be able to moor boats on the north side of the dock. Mr. Roach said no, the regulations allow for only two (2) mooring slips. He added, however, that the Applicant would be able to pull a boat there temporarily. Mr. Jackson asked what the permitted easement is for docks to extend into the waterway. Mr. Roach clarified that there is no easement; he said the current zoning code limits docks to one hundred (100) feet in length. He said the Applicant is requesting a waiver from that limitation. He pointed out that the proposed dock is more than a sufficient distance from the channel it does not in any way encroach on the channel. Mr. Mayans asked if Staff has any concerns about the precedent being set by granting such a significant waiver for the dock length. Mr. Roach stated that each application is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, especially in regard to waivers. He said Staff considers the additional impacts of a waiver, the basis for the waiver, whether or not the waiver is necessary, and how to mitigate the impacts of a waiver if granted. He said in this case, the sea grass study shows that anything in compliance with the hundred foot limit would put the moorings directly over the existing sea grass. Mr. Weiss asked about the water depths at the proposed mooring platform vs. the water depths within the one hundred (100) foot limit.

Mr. Roach replied that he did not know offhand he would have to look it up. Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, asked if the Applicant would like to make a presentation. Ms. Donna Isham, of Docks & More Construction Company, represented the homeowner. She stated that the water is very shallow where the sea grass is located. She explained that the DEP and Army Corps of Engineers would not allow the dock to be any shorter than proposed. She pointed out that based on the way the property is situated, the dock appears to be closer to the shore than other docks on that strip of land. Public Comment None. Executive Session Mr. Weiss stated that he appreciates the sensitivity the Applicant has shown in trying to protect the sea grass.

Mr. Gregg Weiss made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1619, a request for a Class A Special Use Permit to construct a dock accessory to an existing single family residence, with the conditions as presented by Staff. Seconded by Mr. Todd McLeod. Approved 4-0. No opposition.
80 Points West, Development of Significant Impact Planning Board Case Nos. 1388C & D

A request by Gregory S. Kino, Esquire, of Casey Ciklin Lubitz Martens & O'Connell, on behalf of PCA Aqua Vista, LLC, for the following: Case No. 1388C: A Major Amendment to the 80 Points West Development of Significant Impact (DSI) to reduce the number of previously-approved dwelling units, and add provide for the addition of gazebo and walking path; and Case No. 1388D: A Class A Special use Permit to construct a dock, necessitating two (2) waivers from the City's Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDRs), as part of the proposed residential development. Location: The approximately 5.45 acre property is located at 5750 North Flagler Drive, within Commission District No. 1 Commissioner Sylvia Moffett.

Mr. John Roach stated that the subject cases relate to 80 Points West, a Development of Significant Impact (DSI) proposed at 5750 North Flagler Drive. He said Planning Board Case No. 1388C is a Major DSI Amendment, and Planning Board Case No. 1388D is a Class A Special Use Permit. He noted that the approximately 5.45-acre property is vacant all structures on the property have been removed. He presented a history of the proposed development, as follows: In October of 2003, the City Commission approved Resolution 522-03 for a Development of Significant Impact then known as Aqua Vista, consisting of a twenty (20) story tower with 130 residential units, forty (40) townhouse units, and one (1) single family house at the northeast corner of the property. In November of 2005, the City Commission approved Resolution 446-05 to relocate the buildings in order to preserve an eighty (80) year old banyan tree at the south side of the property, to add three (3) dwelling units to the development, to change the architecture of the buildings, and to change the name to its current 80 Points West. Mr. Roach said the existing approval is valid until 2013. He noted that no construction activity has occurred to date. Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant is now proposing: Case No. 1388C: To remove the single family house which has since been demolished from the site plan, and to reconfigure the site plan to provide open space with an amenity gazebo and walking path in its place. Case No. 1388D: To include a ten (10) slip dock as part of the Master Plan. Mr. Roach explained that the original development provided for informational purposes the construction of a ten (10) slip dock, but at that time, the regulatory approvals had not yet been obtained so the dock could not be approved as part of the development. He said the regulatory approvals have since been obtained, and the Applicant is requesting a Class A Special Use Permit so that the dock can be included in the Master Plan. Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant is requesting several waivers from the Zoning and Land Use Regulations, as follows: Waiver #1 Dock Length: Mr. Roach said the Applicant is asking for a ten (10) foot waiver to construct a 110-foot long dock in order to accommodate the number of slips. He mentioned that the proposed dock is well under the allowable number of slips, as the current Code allows one (1) slip per every four (4) residential dwelling units. Additionally, he pointed out that the dock is a significant distance away from the channel. He said Staff does not believe that the additional length will cause any additional impact on the adjacent properties, and therefore Staff does not object to the waiver. He displayed a view of the sea grass in the subject area, showing that the dock does not encroach into any of the existing sea grass. Waiver #2 Middle One Third: Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant is requesting a sixteen (16) foot waiver to locate the dock slightly outside of the middle one third of the property line. He noted that the mooring and maneuvering of vessels will not encroach on the neighboring properties, and therefore will have little impact. He said Staff does not object to the waiver.

Waiver #3 Height Above Mooring: Mr. Roach stated that the Zoning and Land Development Regulations restrict what can be constructed above the dock platform; only mooring facilities such as mooring piles, boat lifts, security fences, etc. are allowed. He said because of the sea grasses, the regulatory agencies have stipulated that the Applicant must construct a railing along the east terminal platform of the dock, and must include No Mooring signs as part of the approval in order to prevent any vessels from mooring on the east side over the top of the habitat. He said Staff has no objections to the waiver, as it is for the benefit of the natural sea grass habitat, and has been approved previously in similar circumstances. Mr. Roach stated that the Applicant has received approval from the South Florida Water Management District as well as the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Roach said based on the finding that the petition complies with all of the applicable standards, Staff is recommending APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS of Planning Board Case No. 1388C, subject to the following conditions: 1. The dumpster enclosures shall be roofed so as to screen the view of the dumpsters from above. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a boundary plat will be required. 3. All permanent identification signs for the proposed residential development shall be set back a minimum of twenty (20) feet if placed perpendicular to the right-of-way. Signs placed parallel to the right-of-way may be permitted with a fifteen (15) foot setback. 4. The dock shown on the Site Plan (Sheet SP-1) is for informational purposes only. Any and all dock construction shall correspond to those plans approved through the Class A Special Use Permit process. Mr. Roach noted that some of the conditions have been carried over from the previous approval. He said based on the finding that the petition meets all of the applicable standards, Staff is recommending APPROVAL of Planning Board Case No. 1388D, subject to the following conditions: 1. The docks shall not be used for any commercial use, including, but not limited to, providing access to any commercial enterprise, docking a boat for a fee (other than those residents within the residential condominium), fishing ventures for a fee, marine salvage ventures, teaching or training of any marine-related activity, and the sale of marine-related products. 2. Prior to a Certificate of Completion for the proposed dock, all mooring slips shall be provided with appropriate connections for potable water, electric, and sanitary sewer service. 3. The City shall not issue any building permits for the construction of the docks prior to the issuance of any building permit for any portion of the approved upland residential development.

4. No Certificate of Completion for the dock shall be issued until such time as a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for at least forty (40) residential units on the upland portion of the subject property. Mr. Roach noted that Conditions 3 and 4 were added after the Staff Report was prepared. He said the Applicant has asked, and Staff has no objection, that Condition No. 4 shall be modified prior to City Commission to reflect the number of units actually built on the upland property; in that way, the Applicant may build fewer than forty (40) units, and may provide the corresponding allowable number of slips. Mr. Roach said the wording of Condition No. 4 will be adjusted to reflect that the Applicant may not exceed the ratio of one (1) slip per four (4) units. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Mr. Weiss asked about the depth of the water at the sea wall. Mr. Roach said he believes it is approximately 4-6 feet. Mr. McLeod said Staff indicated that the previous approval is good through 2013. He asked if that means the Applicant must pull a building permit by December 2013. Mr. Roach said the Applicant must pull a building permit and commence construction with regard to the pouring and completion of the footers. Mr. McLeod asked if any action by the Board will change that deadline. Mr. Roach said the approval of any Major Amendment will extend the development order for three (3) years following the approval. Mr. Steven Mayans, Chairperson, asked if the Applicant would like to make a presentation. Mr. Greg Kino, of Casey Ciklin, declined to make a presentation. Public Comment Ms. Moreen Crouch stated that she lives directly south of the proposed property. She expressed a concern about the manatees that accumulate every winter directly in front of her building and the building to the north of the proposed project. She said both buildings have a small beach area where the water has a large amount of sea grass, and anywhere from up to one hundred (100) manatees come up to the beach area. She said the Florida Fish and Wild Life Conservation Commission has visited the area, and has discussed putting in a wave break to allow the

manatees to pass under. She noted that the water is shallow one can stand in the water at low tide. She said her concern is the impact that 40-80 foot boats will have on the manatees. Mr. Mayans asked Ms. Crouch what it is that she would like the Applicant to do. Ms. Crouch replied that she is not sure she is not an expert. She said she would like the danger to the manatees to be taken into consideration. Mr. Greg Kino stated that he represents the owner, PCA Aqua Vista. He noted that the beach area is not being altered it will remain in its current state. He said the proposed dock will be situated approximately 160 feet from the point where there is a notch in the beach area. Additionally, he said the South Florida Water Management District has imposed six (6) conditions of approval, including one that requires vessels to shut down if there is a manatee within fifty (50) feet. He offered to provide Ms. Crouch with a copy of the document. He said any operators of vessels will be made aware of the regulations. He also noted that the larger vessels do not come in and out frequently; they may not be moved for a week or two (2). Mr. Weiss asked Mr. Kino if he would be opposed to a Board recommendation that boat operators be provided with a copy of the recommendations of the South Florida Water Management District. Mr. Kino said that would not be a problem. Ms. Crouch asked if anyone will be living on the boats. Mr. Kino said that would not be permitted by the City of West Palm Beach. Mr. Don Novell, of 106 Flagler Promenade North, asked how many stories the planned project will be. Mr. Roach said the tower will be twenty (20) stories. Mr. Mayans noted that that has already been approved, and is not under consideration by the Board. Mr. Novell asked about the setback from the property line on the water to the beginning of the tower. Mr. Roach stated that the setback is 237.5 feet from the water to the tower.

Executive Session Mr. Gregg Weiss made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1388C, a request for a Major Amendment to the 80 Points West DSI to reduce the number of previously-approved dwelling units, and to provide for the addition of a gazebo and walking path, with the conditions as recommended by Staff.

Seconded by Mr. Todd McLeod. Approved 4-0. No opposition. Mr. Gregg Weiss made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1388D, a request for a Class A Special use Permit to construct a dock, with two (2) waivers from the City's Zoning and Land Development Regulations (ZLDRs), as part of the proposed residential development, with the conditions as recommended by Staff, and an additional recommendation as follows: 5. All operators of vessels docking at the subject dock shall receive a copy of the South Florida Water Management District permit as relates to manatees in the area. Seconded by Mr. Todd McLeod. Approved 4-0. No opposition.
Major Amendment Hulett Environmental Services Commercial Planned Development, 7640 Okeechobee Boulevard Planning Board Case No. 1594A

A request by Brian Terry of Land Design South, on behalf of RLK, LLC, for a Major Amendment to the Hulett Environmental Services Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to reconfigure the site based on a revised design for the previously approved 30,165 square foot office building and to install parking along the southern rear access drive. Location: The subject 3.65 acre property is located at 7640 Okeechobee Boulevard, within Commission District No. 4 Commissioner Keith James. Mr. Eric Schneider stated that this case is a request by Hulett Environmental Services for a Major Amendment to their Commercial Planned Development (CPD), specifically in regard to the site layout. He said the site is located on Okeechobee Boulevard, at the corner of Wekiva Way; the Golden Lakes Community lies to the south of the site, Land Rover is situated to the east along Wekiva Way, and there is a commercial strip development to the west. Mr. Schneider stated that the Applicant currently has approvals from January of 2011 for a site plan to construct an approximately 30,000 square foot, three (3) story building for office use. He noted that the subject property was annexed into the City as a non-conforming use, with an existing building already constructed; the pest control use was allowed to continue within the CPD. He said the Applicant is now proposing to modify the site plan: the building has been shifted somewhat to the northeast; the first floor on two (2) sides of the building will be ground floor parking with curbing; parking will also be added along the service road on the south portion of the site. Mr. Schneider noted that the building shift to the east will allow for a wider landscape strip of foundation planting against the existing building. He said all other landscape requirements have been met. Mr. Schneider said based on the finding that this petition meets all eight (8) of the Amendment Standards found in Section 94-32 of the Zoning and Land Development Regulations, Staff is

10

recommending APPROVAL of Planning Board Case No. 1594A, with the conditions as listed in the Staff Report. He noted that the Applicant has agreed to all of the conditions. See the Staff report for detailed history, background and analysis information pertaining to this case. Board Questions to Staff Mr. McLeod stated that the Board did not receive a copy of the letter of support. He asked who is included in the letter. Mr. Schneider said the commercial Property Owners Association (POA) includes the shops to the west, the Land Rover dealer to the east, and the office building to the south. Mr. Weiss asked if there was support from Golden Lakes as well. Mr. Schneider said he did not receive any letters of support from the neighborhood; he did receive calls from the neighborhood expressing a concern that the roadway would be closed off, but the road is not being closed off it has to remain open due to the easement language on the plat prohibiting any change to the right-of-way without the support of a list of entities, including the Lake Worth Drainage District, the City, the Post Office, and others. Mr. Weiss asked if it is correct that the vegetation will be beefed up against the residential neighborhood. Mr. Schneider said yes. He said noted that one of the conditions of approval specifies that some of the original landscaping that died over time must be re-planted. The Applicant was not present to make a presentation. Public Comment None. Executive Session Mr. Todd McLeod made a motion to APPROVE Planning Board Case No. 1594A, a request for a Major Amendment to the Hulett Environmental Services Commercial Planned Development (CPD) to reconfigure the site based on a revised design for the previously approved 30,165 square foot office building and to install parking along the southern rear access drive, with the conditions as listed by Staff in the Staff Report dated August 21, 2012. Seconded by Mr. Charles Jackson. Approved 4-0. No opposition.

11