PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA November 4, 2010 MINUTES OF A MEETING CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL

Transcription

1 PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA November 4, 2010 MINUTES OF A MEETING CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Deerfield Beach, a municipal corporation of Florida, was called to order on the above date at 7:00 p.m. in the City Commission Chambers by Chairman, Allen Davis. Roll Call showed: Present: Allen Davis, Chairman Linda Mooney, Vice Chairwoman Gerald Alter Robert Brown Todd Drosky Alphonso Nero Also Present: Jerry Ferguson, Director of Planning and Growth Management Marcia Stevens, Senior Planner Sharon Cruz, Assistant City Attorney Vernadette Fuller, Minutes Secretary Absent: Ray Lavoie, Alternate School Board Representative SEATING OF ALTERNATES NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING Chairman Davis requested either approval or corrections to the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of, August 5, Motion was made by, Mr. Alter, and second by, Vice Chairwoman Mooney to approve the minutes of August 6, 2010 as submitted. The motion CARRIED unanimously. ELECTION OF OFFICERS (CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR) Motion was made by, Mr. Brown, and second by, Mr. Alter to postpone the election of officers to the next meeting. The motion CARRIED unanimously. OLD BUSINESS NONE

2 NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT #53A Appellant: CRYSTAL LAKE GOLF CLUB, LLC, by Ruden McClosky Proposal: Amendment to the Deerfield Beach Future Land Use Plan Map, changing the Use designation on the following parcels; 1)a acre parcel from Recreation Commercial to Community Facility, 2) a acre parcel from Residential Median (16 du/ac) to Community Facility, and 3) a 0.l18 acre parcel from Residential Irregular (17 du/ac) to Community Facility. Location: The property is described as Parcels X and Y of CRYSTAL LAKES 4 TH SECTION, located at 1391 and 1085 N.W. 45 th Street. Chairman Davis acknowledged Commissioner Popelsky s presence at the meeting. Jerry Ferguson, Director of Planning and Growth Management, summarized the application and advised that 1060 property owners were notified and 0 letters were returned undeliverable. No letters of objection or approval were received. He noted that the golf cart easement areas located on both parcels is designated residential land use. The applicant is offering to voluntarily restrict the use of the property to cemetery. PLANNING & GROWTH MANAGEMENT - This is a request to amend the City s future land use map by changing the land use designations of the former acre Tam O Shanter Golf Course from Recreation Commercial, Residential Medium (16 du/ac) and Residential Irregular (7 du/ac) to Community Facility. The applicant is voluntarily restricting the use of the property to a cemetery/memorial park with 45,000 squarefeet of ancillary uses. This restriction has been used for the purpose of evaluating the proposal s impact on public facilities and services. Applicant s Rationale for the Amendment - The former Tam O Shanter golf course has been closed since the hurricanes of Two previous land use proposals; (LUPA #31A which was a request to revised the golf course and include single family housing and LUPA #50A requested to construct multi-family residential with a public park) met resistance from the abutting neighbors. Both applications were withdrawn. At the suggestion of the abutting property owners, the applicant desires to improve the property with a private cemetery/memorial park. The proposed Community Facility land use designation permits cemeteries, and will facilitate the rezoning of the properly to the Community Facility (CF) zoning district. Analysis of Public Facilities and Services. - Potable Water/Sanitary Sewer/ Drainage/Solid Waste/Parks and Recreation The applicant has provided analysis and letters from respective governing authorities stating that adequate capacity is available to meet the short and long term level of service (LOS) requirements for potable water, sewer, drainage, solid waste and parks and recreation. Transportation - The proposed amendment from Recreation Commercial to Community Facilities is projected to decrease the number of p.m. peak hour vehicular trips on the regional transportation network by 442 trips/day. Therefore the amendment would not impact the operating conditions of the regional transportation network. Public Schools - The project will be restricted to a cemetery/memorial park use as allowed per the Community Facility future land use category. This nonresidential use will not generate any school aged children or impact any existing school. 2

3 Analysis of Natural Resources - Designated Protected/Regulated Areas - The application does not contain or is located adjacent to any Natural Resource Area, Local Area of Particular Concern, or Urban Wilderness Area as identified on the Broward County Environmental Protection and Growth Management Department (EPGMD) resource maps. The parcels have been previously cleared for the construction of a golf course. Wetlands - Per the Broward County EPGMD wetland resource map, there are no designated wetlands located within the parcels. Other Natural Resources - As a former golf course, the parcels contains tree canopy that is subject to the City s tree preservation ordinance. While a site plan is not required as part of a land use application, the applicant is encouraged to incorporate the existing trees into the future site plan to minimize tree loss. - City of Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies - The proposed amendment is felt to be generally consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City s comprehensive plan. The application does not negatively impact utility, recreation and transportation LOS standards for the City. Public services and facilities are currently in place to serve the proposed use. Land Use Compatibility - The existing land use surrounding the application consists of single and low-rise multi-family uses. The proposed use of a cemetery/memorial park will not materially alter the existing development pattern. The abutting residents, who have become accustomed to the open space provided by the golf course, will continue to abut a form of open space. Support for the proposed cemetery/memorial park use was voiced by residents at the April 1, 2010 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. The applicant has stated that they will voluntarily restrict the land use of the parcels to cemetery and ancillary uses only. CITY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT - Approved as submitted. ENGINEERING DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES - The Engineering Department has no objections to the proposed Land Use Plan Amendment. The water and wastewater utilities in the proposed project area are not currently serviced by the City. Be advised that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer/contractor must apply for and receive an Engineering Permit. During Engineering permit process, further engineering review will be made and comments provided as required. Responsible developer/contractor must contact Engineering Department at for issuance guidelines. SANITATION DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES - Approved as submitted. FIRE/RESCUE - Approved as submitted. Dennis Mele, 200 East Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, representing the applicant gave a brief history of the application and advised that last spring, the proposal was to make the western parcel a park, the eastern parcel (center area) residential and the outer portion a park and drainage area. Many residents were concerned and opposed to this proposal and the Board tabled the application and asked them to work with the neighbors. In July, they asked the Board not to take action on the application and allow them to continue working with the neighbors. After, working with the neighbors, the new application is before the Board tonight and the request is for a cemetery/memorial park. He also noted that a restrictive covenant allowing a cemetery/memorial park is included with the application.. Continuing, he said that Mr. Little brought in a cemetery operator and he was able to explain to the neighbors what a cemetery/memorial park consists of. Vice Chairwoman Mooney asked who is responsible for maintaining the cemetery/memorial park. 3

4 Mr. Mele replied that the owner is responsible but the State has many regulations regarding cemeteries. Vice Chairwoman Mooney said that the cemetery/memorial park will not cost the City or the residents any money. Mr. Mele replied that is correct and the proposed use will yield more revenues than the golf course. Chairman Davis invited the public to speak for or against the application. Tom Connick, Attorney, 411 East Hillsboro Boulevard, stated that he represents some of the residents of Tam O Shanter who very strongly favor the land use change. Historically, he said that the whole area was marketed and sold based on the open space and some of the residents paid a premium to have properties with a golf course view. Since 2003, there has been concern about what would happen to the property with a land use change proposal. In the spring, he said that the property owner and residents met to discuss the proposal. He acknowledged that Mr. Mele and Mr. Little have been forthright in their proposal. He said that the meeting held at Tam O Shanter resulted in strong support of this proposal. He noted that this joint support between property owner and the residents is something that is unique and this proposal adds to the quality of life for those who live in the area. Lastly, he said that there is a market for a cemetery/memorial garden. And he strongly urged the Board members to vote in favor of the land use change. Bob Freoud, 17 N.W. 48 th Place, advised that he represents the Board of Directors at the Crystal Lake Golf Villas Phase II and the residents that live on the golf. On Memorial Day weekend, he obtained feedback and signatures from 27 residents in favor of the proposal, although, 3 residents would not sign the petition. He acknowledged that not everyone is in support of the cemetery/memorial park; however, the Board and 98% of the residents are. He is thankful that the restrictive covenant is part of the proposal because they are not in favor of a ball park. He urged the Board members to approve the proposal. Diane Micocci, Board member, Waters Edge Tower Condominiums, 4550 N.W. 18 th Avenue, stated that she too spoke with residents in their 140 units and the majority of them are in favor of the cemetery/memorial park. She said that they have battled long and hard for almost 8 years to make sure the quality of life remains the same. She commended the property owner for working with the residents to give them something they can live with. She said that there is a place for athletic fields, but not in a community surrounded by residents. She asked the Board to approve the proposal. Stuart Feigenbachl, 1640 N.w. 48 th Place, stated that his parents paid extra to live on the golf course and he understands that development and planning is not an easy task. He thanked the community and property owner for working together and said that this is unique and should be cherished. He asked the Board to approve the proposal. 4

5 Rita Regean, 1060 N.W. 48 th Place, presented a petition with 102 signatures which represents a sampling of residents and said that the Board members were asked to poll their own people. She asked that this petition and the one from the previous meeting be given to the City Commission. She noted that this proposal keeps the open space intact and it does not impact schools or traffic and preserves the quality of life. She added that the property owner will be able to make money and said that they saw renderings of other memorial parks that were run by the operator. Floda Dorain, 960 N.W. 48 th Place, stated that she is not in favor of the cemetery/memorial park. She said that she has 2 children and is an emergency room nurse and sees dead people frequently and does not want to see people buried behind her house. She paid an additional $40,000 to be on the golf course and wants to make sure the property owner does what is promised. She is also concerned about the value of her property if she decides to sell it. Kroy Ellis, 4550 N.W. 18 th Avenue, #205, thanked Mr. Connick and Mrs. Reagen for the amount of time spent resolving this issue. She also thanked Mr. Mele and Mr. Little for working with the residents in the community. She acknowledged that she is opposed to a cemetery, park, houses or apartments in her backyard. She does not have any suggestions for the property, but requested that the distance 500 feet from the nearest resident rather than 100 feet. Roz Kozminsky, 1212 N.W. 49 th Street, advised that she has lived at Crystal Lake Phase II for 34 years and feels that the cemetery/memorial park will be great for the community. She is not in favor of a ball park and said that the City will also make money from the cemetery/memorial park. She added that this is the first time the community is in agreement with a proposal for this area. Motion was made by, Mr. Alter, and second by, Mr. Brown to close the public hearing. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Mele advised that reopening the golf course is not an option because financially it is not feasible. He said that the land use plan does include a list of uses that can be used. Secondly, he said that significant landscaping and buffering will be installed per the City s code. Mr. Drosky pointed out that the City s Land Development Code; Section outlines the 18 uses that can be used for this property. He asked what happened to the idea of putting in a public park. Mr. Mele recalled that, in May, the proposal included a park on the western parcel, 20 acres was slated for residential properties and the other 30 acres included a park and drainage. He stated that this proposal was tabled and the Board asked them to work with the neighbors and the proposal on the agenda tonight is what the residents are requesting. Mr. Drosky felt that some of the Board members would be in favor of a public park in this location. He said that the current proposal limits the property to cemeteries and asked if the applicant would consider moving it forward and not limiting it to this proposal only. He did not feel the City Commission should be limited to the CF category only. 5

6 Mr. Mele reiterated that they are proposing a restrictive covenant to limit the entire property o cemetery use. He suggested that the Board members express their concerns about the cemetery/memorial park so that the City commission will know their feelings. He added that the Board is only making a recommendation and the City Commission makes the final decision. Mr. Drosky reiterated that the applicant has voluntarily limiting the options to cemetery use only, in effect, handcuffing the City Commission. Mr. Mele advised that the Board can obtain advice from the City s legal counsel. Mr. Connick pointed out that Mr. Mele is correct and he wanted the record to clearly show that the residents are in favor of this proposal, a cemetery/memorial park. He doesn t feel the Board or City Commission is being handcuffed approving this proposal because the solution works out for everyone. Mr. Mele pointed out that this is the fourth proposal for this property and each time there has been opposition from the community. He asked the Board not to table the request in May, but to no avail and they missed the last opportunity for land use amendments. He also acknowledged that the City Commission has the option to approve or deny their proposal. Vice Chairwoman Mooney asked Mr. Drosky for clarification on his request to put a park on this property Mr. Drosky replied that the Board needs to do due diligence with respect to this proposal so that when it goes before the City Commission they will have all of the information. Vice Chairwoman Mooney asked why Mr. Drosky did not bring this up for discussion at the last meeting. Mr. Drosky replied that he did not vote in favor of tabling the item at the last meeting. Mr. Alter stated that the proposal to dedicate the park to the City is no longer happening. He said that he doesn t recall that a ball park, lighting and noise were discussed at any meeting. He added that the park can be a walking or tranquil park and he wanted to know who started the rumors about what type of park would be on the property. Mr. Mele stated that the previous proposal included dedicating park land to the City and the City has jurisdiction to decide what type of park will be adequate. He does not know where the idea of a park came from. Vice Chairwoman Mooney said that she heard the rumor relative to a ball park. She said that if the park is dedicated to the City, they would have to maintain it and the residents would have to pay for that. Mr. Mele stated that is correct. 6

7 Mr. Drosky asked if the City Commission has the ability to choose from the other 17 allowed uses. Ms. Cruz explained that the Board is making a recommendation to the City Commission and they have the right to accept or decline the proposal. Motion was made by, Mr. Alter, and second by, Vice Chairwoman Mooney to approve Land Use Plan Amendment #53A. The motion PASSED 4-2. Mr. Drosky and Mr. Nero voted NAY. The Board recessed at 7:49 p.m. and reconvened at 7:51 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION 10-CIE-04 Applicant: CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH Proposal: Annual amendment to the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the City of Deerfield Beach s Comprehensive Plan, revising the level of service standard (LOS) for public schools and including the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements in order to update the CEI in conformance with Section , Florida Statutes. Marcia Stevens, Senior Planner, advised that this proposal includes the annual text amendment to the CIE required by State statutes. She said that once the budget is passed, the CIP is formulated as it relates to the LOS for water, sewer, drainage, solid waste and recreation. The charts indicate that the 5-year CIP is feasible. The City must prove that monies are available for any project listed in the first three years. She added that those items listed in years 4 and 5 can be planned improvements. Lastly, she said that the old language is indicated by a strike through and the new language is underlined. She noted that the CIE also lists all of the new level of service standards that are in other elements. On September 7 th, the Broward County School Board voted to change the level of service standards for school concurrency and it reads that now there shall be 100% of gross capacity with re-locatable classrooms through each CSA until the end of 2018 school year and commencing at the 2019 it will go to the 110% of permanent FISH capacity. Chairman Davis invited the public to speak for or against the application. No one came forward. Motion was made by, Mr. Alter, and second by, Vice Chairwoman Mooney to close the public hearing. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Motion was made by, Mr. Alter, and second by, Mr. Brown to approve Application 10-CIE-04 as submitted. The motion CARRIED unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION 10-PSFE-02 Applicant: CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH Proposal: Amendment to the City of Deerfield Beach s Comprehensive Plan, amending the adopted level of service standard (LOS) for public school concurrency and incorporating the Second amended Interlocal Agreement for Public School Facility Planning as prepared by the School Board of Broward County 7

8 Marcia Stevens, Senior Planner advised that the appendix of the PSFE includes the Interlocal Agreement between the City and Broward County School Board relates to how we share information. She said that the second interlocal agreement will replace the first one and the LOS will be changed in the goals, objectives and policies as noted in the CIE. Chairman Davis invited the public to speak for or against the application. No one came forward. Motion was made by, Mr. Alter, and second by, Vice Chairwoman Mooney to close the public hearing. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Motion was made by, Vice Chairwoman Mooney, and second by, Mr. Brown to approve Application 10-PSFE-02 as submitted. The motion CARRIED unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT Applicant: CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH Proposal: Amendment to the Deerfield Beach Land Development Code pertaining to the requirements for technical deviations. Jerry Ferguson, Planning and Growth Management Director, advised that the proposed Ordinance strengthens and clarifies items in the section relating to technical deviations. The new language will state that the burden of proof in a technical deviation application is on the applicant and any plan or submitting of traffic study for an applicant is AICP certified. He also said that they are increasing the fee for technical deviations in the beach area from $6,000 per space to $10,000 per space. Chairman Davis acknowledged Commissioner Ganz s presence at the meeting. Vice Chairwoman Mooney asked why this proposed amendment is restricted to the beach area. Mr. Ferguson replied that originally it was recognized that there is a parking problem in the beach area. Secondly, the technical deviation fees were earmarked for a parking garage in the beach area which also includes the Cove shopping center and the barrier islands. He said that a few years ago it was acknowledged that the garage would not be built, so the monies were put into a trust fund and allocated for traffic and pedestrian safety in the beach area. Lastly, he said that this type of justification cannot be made for other areas in the City because technical deviations are spread out and the beach area was identified as critical and having the greatest need relative to parking. He said that the Board members can make recommendations on other areas that may have a parking problem. He also noted that the City has to have sound justification for collecting the monies. Sharon, Cruz, Assistant City Attorney, advised that if it is determined in the future that there is a parking problem in other areas, a traffic and parking study must be done. Vice Chairwoman Mooney asked if only those in the beach area will pay the fees. Attorney Cruz replied yes. 8

9 Mr. Alter said that the trust fund will help to resolve the parking issues on the beach. He said that the solution would be to change the light at Hillsboro Boulevard and A1A. Chairman Davis invited the public to speak for or against the application. No one came forward. Motion was made by, Vice Chairwoman Mooney and second by, Mr. Alter to close the public hearing. The motion CARRIED unanimously. Mr. Drosky asked if the City Attorney contemplated the exact burden to put on the applicant. He asked if a clear and convincing or pondered standard will be used or if the City Commission will choose the standard to be used. Attorney Cruz replied that she did not discuss this with the City Attorney. Mr. Ferguson noted that 1 of 3 arguments or conditions qualify for a technical deviation and the burden of proof is on the applicant Motion was made by, Mr. Brown, and second by, Mr. Alter to approve the proposed Land Development Code Amendment with the stipulation that the City Attorney consider adding a particular standard to be used. The motion CARRIED unanimously. There were no member s reports. There was no staff report. MEMBER S REPORTS STAFF S REPORT ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, motion was made by, Mr. Alter, and second, Mr. Brown to adjourn. The motion CARRIED unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Allen Davis, Chairman Planning and Zoning Board 9