02/07/2013 Planning and Zoning Board

Transcription

AGENDA
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA
February 7, 2013
The following is the agenda of a regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of
Deerfield Beach, a municipal corporation of Florida, to be held on Thursday, February 7, 2013, at 7:00
p.m. in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 150 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441.
A.
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
B.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES – December 6, 2012 and January 3, 2013
C.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS (CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR)
D.
OLD BUSINESS
E.
NEW BUSINESS
1.) PUBLIC HEARING – APPLICATION 13-P-193
Applicant:
RAMCO-GERSHENSON PROPERTIES, LP, represented by Pulice Land
Surveyors
Proposal:
To plat a 0.471-acre parcel for commercial use and to be known as the TIJUANA
TAXI plat.
Location:
A portion of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 7, Township 48 South, Range 43
East, located at 1015 South Federal Highway.
2.) PUBLIC HEARING – APPLICATION 06-B1-181 REVISION 3
Applicant:
UNITED GROWTH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC represented by Kimely-Horn
Proposal:
Location:
and Associates
Site plan modification to construct a 48,425 square-foot commercial addition to
the existing 192,934 square-foot Super Target commercial center totaling 241,364
square feet of commercial use and to create two separate out-parcels, 0.694
acres and 0.725 aces in size respectively, for future commercial development.
A portion of Parcel A, THE LAST PLAT OF DEER CREEK, together with a portion
of Parcel A BUTLER’S CORNER, located at 3317, 3349 and 3599 West
Hillsboro Boulevard.
3.) PUBLIC HEARING – LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
Applicant:
CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH
Proposal:
Amendment to the City of Deerfield Beach’s Land Development Code revising
Section 98-103 relating to reasonable accommodations.
4.) PUBLIC HEARING – LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
Applicant:
Proposal:
Amendment to the City of Deerfield Beach’s Land Development Code revising
Section 98-33 relating to vested rights determinations.
F.
STAFF REPORT
G.
CHAIRMAN’S REPORT
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
February 7, 2013
Page 2
H.
MEMBERS’ REPORT(S)
I.
ADJOURNMENT
Any person wishing to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning Board with respect to any
of the above, will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose, may need to insure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is based. The above notice is required by State law (FS 286.0105.) Anyone desiring
a verbatim transcript shall have the responsibility, at his/her own expense, to arrange for the
presence at the hearing of a certified court reporter. A full transcript of the proceedings will be
needed in order to appeal any decision of the Board. All interested parties may present testimony
relevant to the applications and participate in the proceeding. Further information may be obtained from
the Planning Office during business hours in City Hall. If anyone requires auxiliary aids for
communication, please call (954) 480-4213.
Gerald R. Ferguson, AICP
Director of Planning & Development Services
Publish: Sun Sentinel
January 26, 2013
December 6, 2012
MINUTES OF A MEETING
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 Todd Drosky, Chairman. Roll Call showed:
Present:
Todd Drosky, Chairman
Ray Lavoie, Vice Chairman
Brian Bennett
Robert Brown
John Hillman
Reva Behr, Alternate
Naomi Gayle, Alternate
Also Present: Marcia Stevens, Chief Planner, Long Range Planning
Sharon Cruz, Assistant City Attorney
Vernadette Fuller, Minutes Secretary
Absent:
Kathy Maggi, Alternate
Brett Roy, Alternate
SEATING OF ALTERNATES
NONE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING
Vice Chairman Lavoie made a motion second by Mr. Brown to approve the October 4, 2012
minutes as submitted. The motion carried unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
NONE
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION 12-P-192
Applicant:
DOLLAR GENERAL, by Jane Storms for Dollar General.
Proposal:
To plat a 1.5-acre parcel for commercial retail use to be known as the DOLLAR
GENERAL AT DEERFIELD PLAT
Location:
A portion of the N 1/2 of the S 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48
South, Range 42 East, located at 1377 South Dixie Highway.
.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION:
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES
December 6, 2012
Ms. Stevens summarized the application and advised that 8 property owners were notified, 0
letters were returned undeliverable and 0 letters of approval were received. This is part of the
required development approval process which would allow a maximum of 10,000 square feet of
commercial retail use on a vacant parcel along South Dixie Highway. Per Broward County
platting requirements, no local government may grant an application for a building permit for the
construction of a principal building on a parcel of land, unless a plat including the parcel for the
permit has been approval by the Broward County Commission. The County requires approval
from the City as part of their approval process for the plat.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
1. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: - Per Section 98-9, no permit or approval for
development of land shall be approved which does not comply with the goals, objectives and
policies (GOPs) of the Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use (FLU)
Map designation for this parcel is Commercial and Residential Medium. The residential
medium portion of the property was “Flexed” (using the Broward County rules of flexibility
to commercial), by Ordinance 2003/008 when it was rezoned to DBR, Dixie
Business/residential district. The proposed retail use is a permitted use in the future land use
category of Commercial and supports the intent of the category. The parcel is located within
a larger commercial district, generally located along the entire Dixie Highway corridor. The
application is in compliance with the Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan as restricted.
2. Compliance with the Conservation Element Wellfield Protection Area Map: Upon review of
the City’s wellfield protection map, it appears that the plat is not located in a wellfield
protection zone of influence, and therefore development on the parcel should not be subject to
the County’s wellfield pollution regulations. A storage tank license may be required if fuel
storage associated with an emergency generator system will be included on the site plan.
These requirements should be confirmed by the County’s Pollution, Prevention, Remediation
and Air Quality Division before a construction permit is applied for.
3. Transportation Concurrency Requirements:
The plat is located within the Northeast
Transportation Concurrency Management Area. Concurrency requirements for the parcel will
be assessed by the County upon their review of the plat and findings of trip generation for the
restricted 10,000 square-feet of commercial retail use.
4. Land Development Requirements: Per Section 98-52A, retail sales are a permitted use in the
DBR zoning district. The dimensional requirements of the DBR, Dixie Business/Residential
zoning district would allow a maximum of 65,016 square feet of commercial use on this plat.
Therefore the proposed DOLLAR GENERAL AT DEERFIELD PLAT’s restrictive note of
10,000 square feet of commercial retail use is in accordance with the application’s zoning
district and corresponding maximum allowable floor area requirement.
2
December 6, 2012
SUMMARY:
Staff’s review of application 12-P-192 has found that the proposed preliminary plat is compatible
with the Comprehensive Plan, and meets the use and maximum dimensional limitations of the
Land Development Regulations. Therefore staff would support a recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Board to approve the preliminary plat, subject to meeting all of Broward
County’s final plat requirements.
City Landscape Architect
Approved as submitted.
Engineering Division, Public Works & Environmental Services
This plat application is approved by the Engineering Department with the follow condition:

Director of Environmental Services/City Engineer Charles DaBrusco P.E. request
his name and Florida license number be placed where the City Engineer area
signature box is. Mr. DaBrusco’s license number is 42532.
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 made as required. Responsible developer/contractor must
contact Engineering Department at 954-480-4270 for issuance guidelines.
Sanitation Division, Public Works & Environmental Services
This application has no solid waste facilities to be reviewed in this submission.
Fire/Rescue
This site plan is approved as submitted.
A complete set of permitted plans must be submitted for review and approval prior to all
construction. All permitted plans must comply with Broward County Local Amendments to the
Florida Fire Prevention Code, NFPA 1-Fire Code, Florida Edition 2010, NFPA 101-Life Safety
Code, Florida Edition 2010.
John Police, Police Surveyors, 5381 Nob Hill Road, Sunrise, stated that they are requesting that
the Board approve the request for the plat. He said that the site plan will be on next month's
agenda.
Chairman Drosky invited the public to speak for or against the application. No one came
forward.
Motion was made by, Mr. Brown and second by Vice Chairman Lavoie to close the public
hearing.
3
December 6, 2012
Motion was made by, Mr. Brown and second by Mr. Hillman to approve Application 12-P-192
subject to the staff's comments and regulations. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - APPLICATION 12-CIE-05
Applicant:
Proposal:
Annual update to the Capita Improvement Element (CIE) of the City of Deerfield
Beach's Comprehensive Plan revising the Five-Year Schedule of Capital
Improvements and associated tables in order to update the CIE in accordance with
Section 163.3177 Florida Statutes.
Ms. Stevens summarized the application and advised that each year, in accordance with Florida
Statutes, the City updates the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan to
reflect the Capital Improvements Program in the adopted budget for the current fiscal year. The
agenda back-up material shows the current adopted Capital Improvements Program in Table
10.3, with the resulting summations in Tables 10.5, 10.6, and the “Capital Improvements
Balance Sheet.” The previous Table 10.3 (in strike-through format) is also included for
comparison. It is labeled “Exhibit A.” She added that the City's budget includes a listing of
projects that are to be completed in the next 5 years that implement and reinforce the goals of the
comprehensive plan and maintain the level of service. She noted that CIP includes a summary of
the required level of service standards for all development. A development permit cannot be
issued unless the applicant can show that the development will meet the level of service
standards. The data analysis section, projects the population and shows what is being done and
how the City is meeting them. She said that the water plant was improved a few years ago to
ensure that the City would be able to meet the level of service for water for the next 20 years.
Once the budget is adopted, she said that the staff organizes the projects in the area of their
functional category. Also, the charts are changed to show they are funded and for how much.
Chairman Drosky asked for clarification as to whether or not the projects are a wish list subject
to budget constraints.
Ms. Stevens replied that the CIP had a requirement for financial feasibility whereby the project
had to be funded in the first 3 years. However, this requirement was removed by the Legislature,
but the City is trying to maintain the financial feasibility standard with its projects. Lastly, she
pointed out that the requirement to send the CIE to the other agencies for approval has also been
eliminated.
Chairman Drosky invited the public to speak for or against the application.
Reva Behr, Planning and Zoning Board, alternate member, stated that the proposed CIE includes
millions of dollars being spent on parks and playgrounds. She said that she would like to see
more road improvements and money spent in the middle and western sides of the City.
Ms. Stevens pointed out that the budget was adopted by the City Commission in September and
staff is organizing the projects in the appropriate areas in the CIE.
It was acknowledged that the City Commission does have budget workshops before the final
budget is approved.
4
December 6, 2012
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by Mr. Brown to close the public
hearing. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
Motion was made by, Mr. Brown and second by, Vice Chairman Lavoie to approve the CIE of
the City of Deerfield Beach's Comprehensive Plan as revised. The motion CARRIED
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
Applicant:
Proposal:
Amendment to the City of Deerfield Beach's Land Development Code revising
the B-1 section of the Land Development Code to change substance abuse
treatment facilities from a conditional use to a permitted use so as to be consistent
with changes previously made to the other zoning districts.
Ms. Cruz, Assistant City Attorney, advised that in June the Code was amended to eliminate
conflicts with Federal and State regulations. She said that the proposed section was missed and
this amendment brings it into compliance and changes substance abuse treatment facilities from
a conditional use to a permitted use.
Vice Chairman Lavoie pointed out that the City of Deerfield Beach has several substance abuse
treatment facilities and asked is there a limit on the allowable number.
Assistant City Attorney Cruz replied that there is no limit.
Chairman Drosky stated that the Ordinance was revised as it relates to the distance.
Ms. Stevens said that the distance stipulation was in the previous Ordinance.
Mr. Brown noted that the changes were made to meet the Federal and State guidelines.
forward.
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by Mr. Bennett to close the public
Motion was made by, Mr. Brown and second by, Mr. Bennett to approve the Land Development
Code Amendment pertaining to substance abuse treatment facilities. The motion CARRIED
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - CITY CODE AMENDMENT
Applicant:
Proposal:
Amendment to the City of Deerfield Beach's City Code clarifying the definition
of "private club".
5
December 6, 2012
Assistant City Attorney Cruz advised that this amendment is more detailed and clarifies the
definition of what a private club is to bring it into conformance with the provisions of the
Dreamland Ballroom and Social Dance Club Fourth District Court of Appeal case.
.
Mr. Brown asked Ms. Cruz to point out the changes for the audience members.
Assistant City Attorney Cruz replied that the following changes are being proposed;
Membership fees shall not be in the nature of a onetime “cover charge” in order to gain entrance
into the physical club facility; and It shall charge a membership fee or require some sort of
membership as a precondition for entrance; or It shall have adopted standards for admission to
membership which shall include the name, address and telephone number of the prospective
member; and It shall hold itself out in advertisements or promotional material as a private club
not open to the general public.
Chairman Drosky explained that the backup material acknowledges a new appellant case that
will bring the City's code in compliance.
Assistant City Attorney Cruz said that it is a Fort Lauderdale case and reiterated that the changes
bring the City's code in line with the case.
forward.
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by Mr. Bennett to close the public
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by, Mr. Brown to approve the City Code
Amendment. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - CITY CODE AMENDMENT
Applicant:
Proposal:
Amendment to the City of Deerfield Beach's City Code creating a new section
regulating donation bins.
Assistant City Attorney Cruz advised that the proposed Code Amendment distinguishes between
bins for clothing and other bins, and allows only clothing bins. They also require permits for the
allowed bins, limit them to charitable organizations, limit what may be displayed on the bins,
limit the locations to commercial areas, and regulate the location and number of bins allowed on
a property.
Chairman Drosky acknowledged Vice Mayor Ganz' s presence at the meeting.
Mr. Brown asked if the proposed amendment would prohibit the Salvation Army from putting
out their toy bin once a year.
Assistant City Attorney Cruz replied that the amendment pertains to permanent bins.
Mr. Hillman asked if there is anything in the amendment defining temporary versus permanent.
6
December 6, 2012
Chairman Drosky noted that Subsection D, at the bottom of Page 2, states that "donation bins are
prohibited".
Mr. Brown asked for clarification on Chairman Drosky's comment.
Mr. Hillman replied that the above section distinguishes between clothing and donation bins.
Chairman Drosky read from Page 1 of the proposed Ordinance that reads " a Donation bin is
defined as a receptacle or container material designed or intended for the collection and
temporary storage items other than clothing. He also made reference to Page 2 of the amendment
which reads that " Donation clothing bins shall be permitted on a limited basis. He
acknowledged that the toy bin would not be permissible under the proposed amendment.
Assistant City Attorney Cruz pointed out it was not their intention to prohibit the yearly toy
donation bins.
Mr. Brown wanted to make sure that legitimate charitable organizations would have an
opportunity to collect items.
Chairman Drosky commented that they have all seen the donation bins overflowing and items on
the ground next to them. He said that they look unsightly when this happens and the Ordinance's
intent is to clean up the bins and the surrounding area. He also agreed that there are legitimate
charitable organizations.
Assistant City Attorney Cruz made reference to Page 5 of the proposed amendment which reads
" (1)The bin(s) shall be of the type that are enclosed by use of a one-way receiving door so that
the contents of the bin(s) may not be accessed by anyone other than those responsible for the
retrieval of the contents." She also said that the Board members can recommend changes.
In response to Chairman Drosky, Mr. Brown replied that he would like to add language that
pertains to items on a seasonal basis.
Mr. Hillman asked if the amendment includes the individuals who collect monies in front of
businesses.
Assistant City Attorney Cruz replied that there are regulations pertaining to individuals
mentioned by Mr. Hillman.
In response to Vice Chairman Lavoie, Assistant City Attorney Cruz, replied that they obtain an
annual permit.
Chairman Drosky noted that there is a requirement to get permission from the property owner
before a bin is placed on site. He also said that there is a reference on Page 2 to the bins being
emptied bi-weekly and he thinks it should be changed to read weekly.
7
December 6, 2012
Mr. Bennett felt that the verbiage should be flexible as it relates to emptying the bins. He also
said that he does not feel comfortable recommending approval of the amendment without further
explanation from the City Attorney.
Vice Mayor Ganz asked to postpone discussion on this item for 5 minutes to allow the City
Attorney time to come to the meeting and explain his reasoning behind the amendment.
The Board continued with discussion on Item #5 at 7:40 p.m.
Andrew Maurodis, City Attorney, stated that the City wants to allow bins from the Salvation
Army which is a well respected organization. He added that a decision was made to limit the
items to clothing bins only because they are cleaner. He said that toys may have batteries or
electrical devices and may not be safe. Continuing, he said that they added criteria to make sure
that the bins are from legitimate charitable organizations. Next, he said that they looked at
limiting the number of bins that are located throughout the City. He stated that they reviewed
Codes from throughout the country as it relates to this issue. He noted that a square footage ratio
was done to determine how many bins would be allowed in a shopping center. He added that
they did not want to have bins in every strip shopping center. Lastly, they added language
relevant to them having a permit and maintaining the bins.
Mr. Brown recommended that a permit be granted for organizations that collect toys seasonally.
Mr. Hillman asked why the $100.00 fee for each bin is included.
Attorney Maurodis replied that staff has to make sure that the bins are inspected and maintained
properly.
Chairman Drosky asked if any other organizations have approached the City other than the
Salvation Army.
Attorney Maurodis replied no.
Chairman Drosky stated that the ordinance can be amended if other organizations make requests
to have bins.
Bett Willett, 2647 Emerald Way Circle, stated that Jim Moyer came before the City Commission
regarding the white for profit bins that are placed throughout the City. She said these bins are
illegal and the Salvation Army was not allowed to place their bins in certain locations. She noted
that one of the Salvation Army bins will be placed in the location where the Women's Club
meets. She said that the seasonal bins are a great idea also. She added that the Salvation Army
suffered during the summer and she and others helped to collect items for them. She urged the
Board member to pass the amendment.
8
December 6, 2012
Jim Moyer, Salvation Army of Broward County, Adult Rehabilitation Center, stated that they
have a year round program that is funded through the donation of goods. He said that 60% of
their sells come from clothing and they have to send workers home during the summer because
they run out of clothes. He acknowledged being a marine and understands the need for the Toys
for Tots program each year. He noted that they need to collect 1.148 million pieces of clothes to
meet their budget yearly. He informed the Board members that he took pictures of 49 illegal
donation bins in the northern portion of the County and 11 of them are in Deerfield Beach. He
stated that he has been trying to get the illegal bins replaced with ones provided by legal
charitable organizations. He commended the City Commission and Attorney for working so
diligently on this project for over a year. He encouraged the Board members to support the
amendment. He also said that a traditional recycling bin cannot be used to collect clothing.
Chairman Drosky asked if Mr. Moyer has reviewed the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Moyer replied no.
Nancy Marchione, 1100 SE 5 Court, stated that they agree that not for profit, properly permitted
and placed bins should be allowed in the City.
Marty Mc Geary, 1442 SE 6 Street, President of the Women's Club of Deerfield Beach, stated
that they support the proposed amendment. She said that their clubhouse has been located on
Hillsboro Boulevard since 1957and they would like to place one of the bins in the rear of the
building. She noted that a new bin was placed in the River Towne Square Shopping Center on
Federal Highway. She said that these bins are cropping up throughout the City.
Marge Hilton, 1101 SE 5 Court, stated that they support the proposed amendment and agreed
that properly permitted and placed not for profit bins should be allowed in the City.
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by Mr. Brown to close the public
In response to Mr. Hillman, Chairman Drosky replied that the amendment would be limited to
certain commodity, clothing rather than a particular organization.
Mr. Brown reiterated that there are other legitimate organizations that should be allotted the same
courtesy.
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by, Mr. Bennett to approve the City
Code Amendment with the stipulation that the City Commission consider a provision for other
types of seasonal organizations per the Code. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
BOARD MEETING CALENDAR FOR 2013
Ms. Stevens noted that the Board meetings in 2013 will be held on the first Thursday except for
the month of July.
9
December 6, 2012
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by, Mr. Brown to approve the 2013
meeting schedule. The motion CARRIED unanimously by voice vote.
REPORTS
STAFF'S REPORT
Ms. Stevens reported that staff provided a chart that lists the items that were reviewed by the
Board from November 2011 to October 2012. She added that the item pertaining to Cache
Cleaners was reviewed and approved by the City Commission on December 4, 2012.
Secondly, she said that upcoming activities include the revised Land Development Code and in
the next several months, staff will be conducting a comprehensive review of the Land
Development Code with the intent of updating the code overall. Secondly, the Complete Streets
Policy Plan - follow-up to the Technical Assistance grant the City received from Smart Growth
America, staff is developing a Complete Streets Plan policy plan. A Complete Streets webpage
will be on-line soon. Thirdly, the Rezoning Annexed Areas - Over the next year staff will be
working with the City Attorney to convert the annexed areas from County zoning to City zoning.
There are five (5) site plans for the January meeting and election of officers.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
There was no chairman's report.
MEMBER'S REPORTS
There were no member's reports.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, motion was made by, Mr. Brown and second by Mr. Bennett to
adjourn. The motion CARRIED unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m.
_____________________________
Planning and Zoning Board
10
January 3 2012
MINUTES OF A MEETING
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 Todd Drosky, Chairman. Roll Call showed:
Present:
Todd Drosky, Chairman Pro Tem
Ray Lavoie, Vice Chairman
Brian Bennett
John Hillman
Kathy Maggi, Alternate
Also Present: Jerry Ferguson, Director of Planning Development Services
Marcia Stevens, Chief Planner, Long Range Planning
Amanda Martinez, Planner
Andrew Maurodis, City Attorney
Sharon Cruz, Assistant City Attorney
Vernadette Fuller, Minutes Secretary
Absent
Robert Brown
Reva Behr, Alternate
Naomi Gayle, Alternate
Cody Loomis, Alternate
SEATING OF ALTERNATE
Ms. Maggie was seated to serve at tonight's meeting.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS BOARD MEETING
NONE
OLD BUSINESS
NONE
NEW BUSINESS
Chairman Drosky advised that Item #5 will be taken out of order. He also recognized
Commission Miller’s presence at the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING – LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
January 3, 2013
Applicant: CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH
Proposal: Proposed revisions to the City of Deerfield Beach Land Development Code to address
compatibility provisions including additional development requirements and definitions
Andrew Maurodis, City Attorney advised that Commissioner Miller, endorsed by the
Commission, at the December 18, 2012 Special Commission meeting was concerned as to
whether or not the City was providing sufficient protection to children and the residents in light
of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. He asked that the City Manager and the City
Attorney look at all the City’s ordinances to determine what additional regulations would be
needed to add additional protection. Since the City cannot regulate the most obvious problem
due to state preemption (gun control), it was determined that an amendment to the Land
Development Code would be a step in the right direction to afford some protections to children
and residents against uses that might threaten their safety and security. He said that he will
continue to look at whether there are any additional regulations which the City may adopt within
the Land Development Code and the general Code of Ordinance to provide further protection. At
the City Commission meeting, it was discussed that the City should try and recognize its roll in
security as it relates to the responsibility of its citizens. He added that the City’s code has a
compatibility clause as it relates to noise, traffic or, etc. He said that the assistant city attorney
asked the question "shouldn’t the security of those being effected by new development be
considered a compatibility element?" For example, he said that if a permitted business (bar, pain
management center or gun shop) is located close to a school or playground, shouldn’t there be a
concern as to whether or not the business proposes a security risk. Lastly, he commented that
some businesses may be required to have a security wall around their business or provide
security on premises during certain hours of operation. He said that this measure will ensure that
the residents will feel secure in their homes, churches, etc.Continuing, he said that the proposed
ordinance includes a new definition of the word compatibility - "a condition in which land uses
or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such
that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another use or
condition." It also states that the compatibility of land uses is dependent on numerous
development characteristics which may impact adjacent or surrounding uses. These include: type
of use, density, intensity, height, general appearance and aesthetics, odors, noise, smoke,
vibration, traffic generation, nuisances, and conditions which could threaten the security or
safety of others, especially those using public or private schools, day care centers, parks,
playgrounds or places where those under 18 years of age are likely to gather. Compatibility shall
be measured based on the following compatibility characteristics of the proposed development in
relationship to surrounding development in the immediate area (uses on lots within 500 feet of
the lot upon which the proposed use is to occur). He also said that they can expand the ordinance
to include a certain type of clientele that may be a nuisance. He noted that Page 2 of the proposed
ordinance reads, g. Conditions, uses, or activities which could cause a threat to the safety or
security to those under 18 years of age using schools, churches, parks, playgrounds or other
facilities which cater to those under 18 years of age on lots within 500 feet of the lot upon which
the proposed use will occur; h. Outside activities associated with the proposed use which could
interfere with the peace and/ or tranquility of residences or public or private schools, day care
facilities, churches, parks, playgrounds and other places that cater to children under the age of 18
or places which regularly provide facilities for such children to gather located on lots within 500
of the lot upon which the proposed use will occur.
January 3, 2013
He pointed out that the ordinance will give the City a tool that will require all businesses to blend
harmoniously with their surroundings as it relates to security. Continuing, Page 3 has the following
additions, b. The proposed development must be compatible with and preserve the character and
integrity of residential neighborhoods within 500 feet of the proposed development. c. The proposed
development must be compatible with public and private schools, day care facilities,
playgrounds, parks and other places that cater to children under the age of 18 or places which
regularly provide facilities for such children to gather within 500 feet of the proposed use as set
forth below: 1. Where determined to be reasonably necessary for these purposes, the
development or facility shall include physical improvements including, but not limited to, walls
higher than permitted in the land development code to the extent required by the City and/or
access restrictions. The City may also require security cameras coordinated with the appropriate
law enforcement agency, other City security operations or other reasonable security measures
including, but not limited to, additional on-site security or background check reporting
requirements to protect the safety and security of any public or private schools, day care
facilities, playgrounds, parks and other places which cater to children under the age of 18 or
places which regularly provide facilities for such children to gather. 2. The City may require the
submission of an operational plan to mitigate objective safety and security concerns created by
the proposed development or use relating to public and private schools, day care facilities,
playgrounds, parks and other places which cater to children under age 18 or places which
regularly provide facilities for such children to gather. 3. There shall be a rebuttable presumption
that the following uses are not compatible with existing or proposed public or private schools,
day care facilities, playgrounds, parks and other places which cater to children under the age of
18 or places which regularly provide facilities for such children to gather when located on a lot
within 500 feet of such uses: i. Retail establishments which sell guns, rifles or ammunition.
Lastly, he said that the courts are not impressed by unsubstantiated fears, but solid evidence. He
noted that may be a challenge and hearing process should be added.
Mr. Bennett stated that he likes the premise of the proposed ordinance, but this legislation probably
would not have prevented the tragedy in Connecticut.
Attorney Maurodis stated that Mr. Bennett’s comment would be an unreasonable claim on behalf of
the legislation.
Mr. Bennett asked what this legislation would do other than giving the Board a tool to scrutinize
applicants. He then asked if this doesn’t already exist in the form of a City Commission.
Attorney Maurodis replied no, the City Commission has the authority it gives in the land
development code. If someone wants to develop their property, they need to be able to look at
the land development code and see everything they need to do to get their proposal approved.
Chairman Drosky suggested that the applicants make an affirmative representation on the
security and safety aspects when submitting an application for a site plan, etc. He added that this
will give the Board and the City Commission the basis to evaluate that factor.
Attorney Maurodis felt that Chairman Drosky's comment is a good idea and said they will
research it further.
3
January 3, 2013
Maureen Kenny, 615 S.E 7th Avenue, stated that her son participated in a program in Boca Raton
like the one administered by Florida House. She said that today her son is one of the top persons
in the business world in part to this program. She added that the Florida House is located in her
neighborhood and you can't walk onto their property because of the security they have in place.
Attorney Maurodis acknowledged that the Ordinance is not related to the Florida House and
pointed out that there are 3 uses that are deemed incompatible with schools, etc; gun shops, pain
management clinics and adult entertainment establishments. He added that once the ordinance is
adopted, the City reserves the right to apply it because they are concerned about the security of
the people around the use.
Commissioner Miller and Chairman Drosky agreed with Attorney Maurodis' comment.
Commissioner Miller addressed the Board and stated that this proposal was submitted to the City
Commission after the tragedy in Connecticut. He said that our culture is changing and terrible
things are happening in different types of venues. He added that there was a time when those
who coached children didn't need a background check and resource officers were not stationed
on school properties. He said that he wants to make sure that the City does all it can as it relates
to the safety of the entire community and the children. Lastly, he asked the Board members to
vote in the affirmative.
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by Ms. Maggie to close the public
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by, Mr. Bennett to approve the Land
Development Code Amendment including the stipulation that the applicants make an affirmative
representation on the security and safety aspects when submitting an application for a site plan,
etc. The motion CARRIED unanimously
PUBLIC HEARING – APPLICATION 08-B2-107 REVISION 4
Applicant:
TIJUANA TAXI COMPANY, Represented by Jack Hawk
Proposal:
Site plan modification to construct a 5,017 square-foot restaurant with drive-thru
and outdoor seating area in excess of 12 seats, as a part of the existing 146,999
square-foot Rivertowne Square Shopping center, totaling 152,016 square feet of
commercial use. A 0.49-acre outparcel of the 13.93-acre total shopping center
parcel described as a portion the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 7, Township 48
South, Range 43 East, located at 1015 S. Federal Highway.
Location:
A 0.49-acre outparcel of the 13.93-acre total shopping center parcel described as a
portion of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 7, Township 48 South, Range 43
East, located at 1015 S. Federal Highway.
Amanda Martinez, Planner, summarized the application and advised that this proposal is for a
new restaurant to be built in the Rivertowne Square Shopping Center on the former, now vacant,
Crabby Jack’s site.
January 3, 2013
PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT
In 1980, a site plan modification to the Rivertowne Square shopping center was approved to
construct a 2,100 square-foot restaurant, in the general location of the proposed application. The
restaurant was expanded in 1990 to include an outdoor dining patio and a larger interior seating
area, for a total area of 4,803 square feet of restaurant use. The restaurant formally known as
“Crabby Jack’s” was demolished in 2011, after a fire destroyed its structure. The proposed
Tijuana Taxi restaurant will be constructed on the vacant building pad of the former Crabby
Jack’s restaurant.
COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS: 1. Per section 98-54(c)(3)(l), outdoor seating in
excess of 12 seats requires conditional use approval. This application provides 79 outdoor seats.
Conditional use approval is required. 2. This property has not been platted. Platting is required
prior to the approval of any building permits for this project. 3. The Community Appearance
Board approved this application on December 19, 2012 with the stipulation that palms be added
along the north elevation planting area.
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Per Section
98-9, no permit or approval for development of land shall be approved which does not comply
with the goals, objectives and policies (GOPs) of the Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan. The
Future Land Use (FLU) Map designation for this parcel is commercial. The commercial land use
category allows restaurants as a type of retail sales and service. Therefore the application for a
restaurant at this location is in compliance with the Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan FLU
element. 2. Compliance with the Conservation Element Wellfield Protection Area Map: Upon
review of the City’s wellfield protection map, it appears that the application is not located within
a Wellfield Zone of influence. However any special environmental requirements should be
confirmed by the County’s Pollution, Prevention, Remediation and Air Quality Division before a
construction permit is applied for. 3. Compliance with the Land Development Code: The parcel
is zoned, B-2, highway business, per the Deerfield Beach Land Development Code and official
zoning map. A restaurant which includes outdoor seating not exceeding 12 patrons is a permitted
use in the B-2 zoning district. However outdoor seating in excess of 12 patrons requires
conditional use approval. This means outdoor seating in excess of 12 persons may only be
permitted upon approval from the City Commission and where is a finding that the use complies
with the conditions set forth in Section 98-85. The applicant must obtain conditional use
approval to allow the 79 outdoor seats as proposed in the application. 4. Finding of compatibility
of a proposed development with adjacent and neighboring (300 feet) uses and zoning: Per
Section 98-17 (15), there must be a finding of compatibility as defined in the Land Development
Regulations, between the adjacent and neighboring uses (300 feet) and the proposed
development.
By definition, compatibility is to be measured based on the following compatibility
characteristics of the proposed development in relationship to the immediate surrounding area:
(a) Permitted uses, structures and activities allowed within the zoning category: The adjacent
uses surrounding the parcel include a restaurant to the north (which has site plan approval to
become a bank), a restaurant to the south, retail use to the west and office use to the east. As a
component of the Rivertowne Square shopping center, the commercial parcel is considered part
of the Federal Highway commercial corridor, centered on the intersection of SE 10th Street and
5
January 3, 2013
Federal Highway. (b) Building location, dimensions, height and floor area; The maximum height
for a structure in the B-2 zoning district is 75 feet. With a building height of approximately 22
feet, the proposed one-story restaurant is well building height of approximately 22 feet, the
proposed one-story restaurant is well within height limits for the B-2 zoning district. As a
component of the Rivertowne Square shopping center, the floor area of the restaurant is added
with the rest of the center, for a total area of 152,016 square feet. This total shopping center
square footage equates to a floor area ratio of 25% for the Rivertowne Square center. The B-2
zoning district allows for a 35% floor area ratio or 212,376 square feet of floor area. (c)
Location and extent of parking, access drives and service areas; The existing shopping center
entrances and parking areas will provide access to the new restaurant. No additional curb cuts
will be required from Federal Highway to support the restaurant.
The restaurant includes a drive-thru lane that meets minimum length; however should the drivethru lane over-flow at peak hours, it has been oriented so that cars do not overflow into the main
shopping center entrance. Since access and parking is shared between the lease parcel and
shopping center, provide a joint use agreement for site plan approval. (d) Traffic generation,
hours of operation, noise levels and outdoor lighting; The proposed restaurant is generally the
same size as the former “Crabby Jack’s restaurant and is expected to generate the same level of
traffic on Federal Highway. The parcel must be platted before a building permit maybe issued.
At that time, the County will determine any traffic impacts and the applicant required to mitigate
them. It is not expected that the hours of operation for the restaurant will exceed those of the
adjacent shopping center. The site plan is not adjacent to any residential development. The
existing parking lot lighting will remain as is; therefore lighting levels will not increase. (e)
Alteration of light and air; The proposed restaurant is 214 feet larger than the former “Crabby
Jack’s” restaurant and generally will be constructed in the same location. As a single story
building, existing light and air flow patterns to adjacent properties will not be diminish with the
construction of the proposed restaurant. (f) Setbacks and buffers – Fences, walls, landscaping
and open space treatment.
To be compatible, design treatments must reflect consideration of adjoining and surrounding
development and land use. The proposed project will increase the landscape area on the lease
parcel from 2,845 square feet (13.5%) to 3,927 square-feet (18.6%) of landscape area. There are
no adjacent residential use issues that might require additional screening. The restaurant
improvements have been sited to complement the existing parking lot and commercial buildings
in the Rivertowne Square Center.
SUMMARY: Staff’s review of application 08-B2-107 Revision 4 has found that the proposed
project is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element of
the Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed use is permitted per the Land
Development Code. City Landscape Architect The landscape plan is approved with the following
conditions: 1. Per Section 98-80(b) an additional two (2) additional trees are required along the
east perimeter buffer. Add trees to the plan to satisfy this requirement. 2. Per Section 98-80 (c)
seven (7) trees are required, only six (6) are provided. Add an additional interior island and one
(1) tree to meet this requirement. 3. Per Section 98-81(2)(b) Mitigation, once determined, may
be achieved two ways; (1) the applicant may plant additional trees on the site to satisfy this
requirement or (2) for trees which cannot be mitigated on site, the applicant will have to pay into
the Beautification Authority Fund. Work with the City Landscape Architect once mitigation
January 3, 2013
option is determined. 4. Relocated Tabebuia and Oak are too close together to allow for full
growing potential. Revise landscape plan to show new tree location. 5. Identify AGV 7 as it is
not shown in the plant list. 6. Consider moving plants with spines or thorns at least 3 feet away
from areas where pedestrians may come into contact with them. 7. Add tree protection detail to
the set of plans.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Tree removal permits are required for all tree removals, to be obtained from the Building
Department.
2. Landscape permits are required before any planting occurs. Permits are
obtained from the Building Department. 3. Trees are to be planted at a depth so that the root-flare
and top of first order root(s) are fully visible, with 10% of the height of the rootball above grade.
Reflect this in planting detail. 4. An irrigation plan and specifications for the system must be
included with the landscape plans when submitting for permit. The irrigation system shall be
designed to have a minimum of 150% coverage. The system must include a rain sensor. 5. All
trees adjacent to FP&L powerlines are required to comply with the FP&L Right Tree Right Place
guidelines. 6. All swales are required to be sodden with St. Augustine “Floratam” sod and
irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system with 150% coverage. 7. Landscape ordinance
specifications on irrigation and installations supersede any notes on the plan. 8. All proposed and
existing plant material on site must meet FL #1 standards as stated in Code. 9. All landscape
plant materials, installation, maintenance and preservation shall be in accordance with the City of
Deerfield Beach Land Development Code, Section 98-80 and 98-81. 10. It is required that the
landscape contractor schedule an on-site pre-construction meeting with the City Landscaper. 11.
The completed installation shall be certified by the firm providing the design, per 9880 (t). 12.
Provide 2 sets of Signed & Sealed as-built plans to Planning and Growth Management Dept.
Engineering Division, Public Works & Environmental Services Approved as submitted. 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 made as required. Responsible developer/contractor must contact Engineering
Department at 954-480-4270 for issuance guidelines. Solid Waste Division, Public Works &
Environmental Services This site plan has been reviewed by the Solid Waste Operations Division
and was found to be acceptable as it relates to collection services and location of
garbage/recycling receptacles. Drop pins are required for both gates to waste enclosure. If you
have any concerns pertaining to this matter please feel free to contact John Biedenharn at 954480-4382. Fire/Rescue This site plan is approved as submitted. A complete set of permitted
plans must be submitted for review and approval prior to all construction. All permitted plans
must comply with Broward County Local Amendments to the Florida Fire Prevention Code,
NFPA 1-Fire Code, Florida Edition 2010, NFPA 101-Life Safety Code, Florida Edition 2010.
Jack Hawk, Architect, 125 SE 2nd Avenue, advised that this is a 5200 square foot Mexican
restaurant with outdoor seating. Phil Silverthorne, 5336 NW 57th Way, Coral Springs, was also
present.
7
January 3, 2013
Chairman Drosky pointed out that the applicant needs conditional use approval because they
exceed the 12 outdoor seats. He said that Section 98-85 of the Code lists the 10 criteria that must
be met in order to obtain conditional use approval. He acknowledged that it is incumbent upon
the applicant to prove to the City Commission that they meet the 10 criteria.
Maureen Kenny, 615 S.E. 7th Avenue, stated that she lives near the restaurant and is anxiously
awaiting their opening.
Dorothy Dunn, 511 S.E.13th Court, said that she too lives near the proposed restaurant and is
very happy to see that it is closed in more than the previous restaurant. She has lived at the same
residence for 44 years and said that the noise factor has always been a concern at this location.
She asked if the entertainment will be limited to inside the building, is it primarily a restaurant or
bar, what are the hours of operation and how many outdoor seats are there.
Carol Arndt, 1001 S.E. Avenue, Rivertowne Manor, asked if the proposal includes the property
where Denny's was located. She also said that there was a proposal submitted to build a bank and
wanted to know if this is still in the plans.
Mr. Hawk said that their restaurant will not have live entertainment, however, they would like to
reserve the right to have speakers on the outside. He added that the bar will be de-emphasized
and the restaurant is family- friendly. He stated they will be open on Sunday-Wednesday until
midnight and Thursday-Saturday until 2:00 a.m. Lastly, he said that their restaurant will be
closed in more than Crabby Jack's was.
hearing.
Mr. Hawk pointed out that if someone is waiting for their table, they can sit outside before they
sit down and dine. He also noted that there are over 200 seats in the restaurant.
Chairman Drosky asked if the applicant will comply with all of the staff's comments.
Mr. Silverthorne replied yes.
Mr. Silverthorne acknowledged that he is familiar with Crabby Jack's Restaurant and said that
they had indoor and outdoor entertainment.
Ms. Maggie said that a bank was slated for the area where the old Denny's is located. She was
also concerned that there could be a clustered traffic pattern on the south side drive thru and said
that the gates to the dumpster enclosure extend into the lanes causing a dangerous problem.
Ms. Stevens noted that there are several ways the traffic can circulate including exiting through
the back of the building.
Chairman Drosky pointed out that the bank and restaurant peak hours will not overlap.
January 3, 2013
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by Mr. Bennett to approve Application
08-B2-107 Revision 4 including all of the staff's comments. The motion CARRIED
unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – APPLICATION 12-B3-102
Applicant:
BEDROSIANS'S, INC., Represented by Peter Corrales
Proposal:
To construct a 97,615-square foot general industrial building.
Location:
A portion of Area "A" and "C" of the ROWAN PLAT, located at 1901 W.
Sample Road.
Amanda Martinez, Planner, summarized the application.
DEPARTMENT COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS
BACKGROUND:
In 1999, the subject parcel was annexed into the City of Deerfield Beach as the former Hertz
used car sales and service center. In 2008, the car rental center was demolished and the property
rezoned from Broward County M-3c (Intense Manufacturing) and B-3c (intense Commercial), to
City B-3 (General Business). In conjunction with the rezoning of the property, the parcel
received site plan approval to construct a 97,355 square-foot general industrial building.
However the building was never built and the approval of the site plan expired August 5, 2009.
Site plan application 12-B3-102 is for a similar general industrial building. It also has been
designed as a tile distribution and showroom center.
COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS:
1. Provide more details for the canvas panels shown on the elevations. They appear to be tile
patterns, which are considered signs and would not be permitted as such. 2. The Community
Appearance Board approved this application on December 19, 2012 with the following
stipulations: 1.) approval of the site plan does not include the proposed canvas panels along the
front elevation, and 2.) revise landscape plan to provide trees with a more substantial tree canopy
on the west and south landscape buffers.
1. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Per Section 98-9, no permit or approval for
policies (GOPs) of the Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan. The Future Land Use (FLU) Map
designation for this parcel is Industrial. The industrial land use category allows for warehouse,
distribution and wholesale use, along with ancillary commercial use devoted to the primary
industrial use. Therefore the application for a general industrial/warehouse building with an
accessory showroom and offices is in compliance with the Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan
FLU element. 2. Compliance with the Conservation Element Wellfield Protection Area Map:
Upon review of the City’s wellfield protection map, it appears that the application is not located
within a Wellfield Zone of influence. Since the application’s rear yard partially borders Crystal
Lake, special environmental requirements (including additional construction measures) maybe
9
January 3, 2013
required by the County’s Pollution, Prevention, Remediation and Air Quality Division. Confirm
environmental requirements before a construction permit is applied for. 3. Compliance with the
Land Development Code: The parcel is zoned B-3, general business, per the Deerfield Beach
Land Development Code and official map. Building materials, supply/distribution to the trade is
a permitted, principal use in the B-3 zoning district. The district also allows accessory uses
which are considered incidental to the principal use, such as showrooms and offices. Therefore
the proposed use of the building is in compliance with its zoning designation. 4. Finding of
compatibility of a proposed development with adjacent and neighboring (300 feet) uses and
zoning: Per Section 98-17 (15), there must be a finding of compatibility as defined in the Land
Development Regulations, between the adjacent and neighboring uses (300 feet) and the
proposed development. By definition, compatibility is to be measured based on the following
compatibility characteristics of the proposed development in relationship to the immediate
surrounding area: (a) Permitted uses, structures and activities allowed within the zoning
category: The adjacent uses surrounding the parcel include: multi-story office buildings to the
east and west, a two story immigration detention center to the north, and Sample Road to the
south. The parcel is located approximately 2,100 linear feet from any residential development
and is generally considered part of the existing commercial/light industrial development centered
on the intersection of Sample and Powerline Roads. (b) Building location, dimensions, height
and floor area; The maximum height for a structure in the B-3 zoning district is 50 feet. While
the building is considered a one-story structure, it has a clear height of 28 feet in the warehouse
portion of the building. The 97,615 square-foot building is well within the dimension
requirements of the B-3 zoning district. The proposed lot coverage of 38% rather than the
maximum 65% means the building’s footprint is approximately 69,458 square-feet smaller than
allowed. (c) Location and extent of parking, access drives and service areas;
The site plan has been designed so that the general public will access the building from the front,
while all truck loading and service will be performed in the rear. It should be noted that an
unimproved, cross access easement from the property to Powerline Road could provide an
additional exit should it be constructed. The application requires 108 parking spaces and is
providing a 124 space lot that fully meets Code. (d) Traffic generation, hours of operation, noise
levels and outdoor lighting; The parcel is accessed via Sample Road (and potentially from
Powerline Road), both classified as principal six-lane arterials. The applicant has stated that the
warehouse/showroom, hours of operation will be from 7:30 am to 5 pm (Monday-Friday) and 8
am to 5 pm on the weekends. These hours of operation are similar to the adjacent office and
commercial buildings. All operations will be performed within the building with outside activity
limited to loading and unloading. (e) Alteration of light and air; The height and mass of the
proposed building is in keeping with the size and multi-story height of adjacent structures. The
building will be setback a minimum of 136 feet from Crystal Lake, allowing existing light and
air flow patterns to adjacent properties. f) Setbacks and buffers – Fences, walls, landscaping and
open space treatment. To be compatible, design treatments must reflect consideration of
adjoining and surrounding development and land use. The proposed project will meet all set back
and landscape buffer requirements. The retention area for the project is located along the rear
property line, providing a large, open landscape area adjacent to Crystal Lake. The property will
also be enclosed with an 8-foot high aluminum white fence. The application exceeds the required
landscape area by 12,178 square feet. The plan will provide 19.7% rather than the required 15%
of landscape area for the site.
January 3, 2013
SUMMARY:
Staff’s review of application 12-B3-102 has found that the proposed project is consistent with the
goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and
that the proposed use is permitted per the Land Development Code.
The landscape plan is approved with the following conditions: 1. Per Section 98-80(b) fifty-eight
(58) trees are required, 12 of which are required within the property along the south property line
buffer. Add five (5) additional trees along the south property line to satisfy this requirement.
Note: Trees in the swale are not counted toward the site’s landscape requirements. 2. Overhead
wires are adjacent the southern property line buffer. One Oak tree along this property line does
not meet FPL’s criteria for their “Right Tree, Right Place” program. Revise plans and resubmit.
Department. 2. Landscape permits are required before any planting occurs. Permits are obtained
from the Building Department. 3. Trees are to be planted at a depth so that the root-flare and top
of first order root(s) are fully visible, with 10% of the height of the rootball above grade. Reflect
this in planting detail. 4. An irrigation plan and specifications for the system must be included
with the landscape plans when submitting for permit. The irrigation system shall be designed to
have a minimum of 150% coverage. The system must include a rain sensor. 5. All trees adjacent
to FP&L powerlines are required to comply with the FP&L Right Tree Right Place guidelines.
6. All swales are required to be sodden with St. Augustine “Floratam” sod and irrigated by an
automatic sprinkler system with 150% coverage. 7. Landscape ordinance specifications on
irrigation and installations supersede any notes on the plan. 8. All proposed and existing plant
material on site must meet FL #1 standards as stated in Code. 9. All landscape plant materials,
installation, maintenance and preservation shall be in accordance with the City of Deerfield
Beach Land Development Code, Section 98-80 and 98-81. 10. It is required that the landscape
contractor schedule an on-site pre-construction meeting with the City Landscaper. 11. The
completed installation shall be certified by the firm providing the design, per 98-80 (t). 12.
This site plan was reviewed by Director of Environmental Services/City Engineer Charles
DaBrusco and the following are his comments: This site plan is not approved by the
from Sample Road is shared with the neighboring parcel, it is recommended that the driveway
intersection be modified to include an island, stop bars, signs and directional signage as shown
on sheet A-1. Call the Engineering Department to set up a meeting with the City Engineer to
discuss modification requirements at the driveway entrance. 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
11
January 3, 2013
made as required. Responsible developer/contractor must contact Engineering Department at
954-480-4270 for issuance guidelines.
Solid Waste Division, Public Works & Environmental Services
This site plan has been reviewed by the Solid Waste Operations Division and was found to be
acceptable as it relates to collection services and location of garbage/recycling receptacles. Drop
pins/plunger bar are required for both gates to waste enclosure. If you have any concerns
pertaining to this matter please feel free to contact John Biedenharn at 954-480-4382.
Mr. Bennett asked for clarification on the statement that the tile on the front of the building is
signage.
Ms. Martinez replied that based on the definition in the sign Code, it would be considered a sign
because it is advertising their business.
Chairman Drosky asked if this statement is the conclusion of the Planning and Development
Services Department or the Community Appearance Board.
Mr. Ferguson advised that the tiles are examples of what the company can do. He read Section
98-3 in the Code which states that "a sign means any device, structure, or fixture using graphics,
symbols and/or written copy for the primary purpose of identifying any establishment, products,
goods or services."
Peter Corrales, Corrales Architect, 2200 Corporate Boulevard, Boca Raton, stated that the
original the project was approved 5 years ago. He said that the business has the same owner and
showroom distribution facility, however, they are adding a more contemporary and appealing
facade. Previously, he said that they catered to wholesale business and this proposal will enable
them to appeal to retail businesses instead. He added that the tiles on the front facade are
decorative banners that would allow for a stretched canvass. He said that they like the banners
and will remove them if they are not allowed.
Chairman Drosky asked if the applicant will adhere to all of the staff's comments.
Mr. Corrales replied yes.
forward.
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by Mr. Bennett and Ms. Maggie to close
the public hearing.
12-B3-102 including all of the staff's comments. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – APPLICATION 12-DBR-8
Applicant:
HANLEX DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Represented by Will Anderson
Proposal:
Location:
January 3, 2013
To construct a 9,258 square-foot retail building.
To construct a 97,615 square-foot general industrial building. A portion
of Area “A” and “C” of the ROWAN PLAT, located at 1901 W. Sample
Road.
Ms. Stevens summarized the application.
BACKGROUND:
Application 12-DBR-8 is a request to construct a 9,258 square foot retail building on a vacant
commercial parcel. The application is submitted in conjunction with plat application 12-P-192
which will be known as the DOLLAR GENERAL AT DEERFIELD PLAT. In 2003, the parcel
was rezoned from RM-15, residence, multifamily and B-1, business, community; to DBR, Dixie
business/residential district. This district was developed to encourage property development
along the Dixie Highway, by allowing new housing types, enhancing the commercial status with
neighborhood serving uses and providing architectural design guidelines. By applying the
Broward County’s rules of flexibility, the former residential portion of the parcel was “Flexed”
to commercial, thereby allowing the entire parcel to be developed for neighborhood commercial
use.
COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS
1. Per Section 99-52A(h), all non-residential uses shall give priority to the street of greatest
intensity by placing the building’s front façade, adjacent to the front property line. The building
street front façade shall have a minimum length, equal to 80% of the front property line’s lot
dimension. This project requires a front façade along Dixie Hwy. to be a minimum of 162 linear
feet. The plans provide a façade along Dixie Hwy. of 79’-8”. Provide a front façade along Dixie
Hwy. of at least 162 linear feet to meet Code. 2. Per Section 98-52A(j), Table B, the front yard
setback is not to exceed 20’. Dimensions are not provided for the front setback, but it scales at
33’. Provide a front setback of no more than 20’ feet to meet Code. 3. Per Section 98-52A(k), 3
bicycle parking facilities are required for this application. No bicycle parking facilities are
provided. Provide 3 bicycle parking facilities to meet Code. 4. Per Section 98-88(j)(1), all
parking spaces shall have wheel stops or extruded curbing. The parking spaces on the plans do
not have either. Provide wheel stops or extruded curbing to meet Code. 5. Per Section 98-80(c),
one interior island not less than 10 feet in width is required for every 20 parking spaces. This
application requires 2 interior islands. There are no interior islands on the plans. Provide 2
interior islands to meet Code. 6. The Community Appearance Board approved this application on
December 19, 2012 with the following stipulations: 1.) the air conditioning units in the rear be
screened with fence material and 2.) Per FPL right-place requirements, add trees along SW 14th
Street, especially along the southwest corner.
1. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan - Per Section 98-9, no permit or approval for
13
January 3, 2013
designation for this parcel is Commercial and Residential Medium. The residential medium
portion of the property was “Flexed” (using the Broward County rules of flexibility to
commercial), by Ordinance 2003/008 when it was rezoned to DBR, Dixie Business/residential
district. The proposed retail use is a permitted use in the future land use category of Commercial
and supports the intent of the category. The parcel is located within a larger commercial district,
generally located along the Dixie Highway corridor. The application is in compliance with the
Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan as restricted. 2. Compliance with the Conservation
Element Wellfield Protection Area Map: Upon review of the City’s wellfield protection map, it
appears the application is not located within a Wellfield Zone of influence and therefore
development on the parcel should not be subject to the County’s wellfield pollution regulations.
A storage tank license may be required if fuel storage associated with an emergency generator
system will be included on the site plan. These requirements should be confirmed by the
County’s Pollution, Prevention, Remediation and Air Quality Division before a construction
permit is applied for. 3. Compliance with the Land Development Code: The property is zoned
DBR, Dixie Business/Residential District per the official zoning map. Limited retail sales, (as
defined in the zoning district would include products normally for sale in a typical Dollar
General Store) is a permitted use within the DBR zoning district. All business activates will be
conducted from a fully enclosed building. The proposed retail use is consistent with the purpose
and intent of the DBR zoning district which is to service the neighboring residential
development. 4. Finding of compatibility of a proposed development with adjacent and
neighboring (300 feet) uses and zoning - Per Section 98-17 (15) , there must be a finding of
compatibility as defined in the Land Development Regulations, between the adjacent and
neighboring uses (300 feet) and the proposed development. By definition, compatibility is to be
measured based on the following compatibility characteristics of the proposed development in
relationship to the immediate surrounding area: (a) Permitted uses, structures and activities
allowed within the zoning category:
The adjacent uses surrounding the parcel include a vacant commercial lot and retail strip building
to the north, Dixie Highway/FEC railroad corridor to the east, vacant commercial to the south
and a multi-family development to the east. The proposed retail use supports the indent of the
DBR zoning district which is to foster neighborhood commercial uses. (b) Building location,
dimensions, height and floor area; Dimensional requirements of the DBR zoning district require
the placement of buildings to be located no more than 20 feet from the front property line and to
be oriented in such a manner so that its length is along the front property line with the majority
of its parking to the rear. There is a formula in the Code to determine the required building
length along the front property line. The proposed building is located 33 feet from the front
property line and its principal length is along Southwest 14th Street. The building location does
not meet the building placement requirements of the DBR district. The maximum height for a
nonresidential building in the DBR district is 35 feet. The top of the parapet for this application
is 23 feet with a building height of 18 feet. The proposed lot coverage of 14% (9,258 square
feet), rather than the maximum 50% means the building’s footprint is approximately 55,585
square-feet smaller than allowed. (c) Location and extent of parking, access drives and service
areas; The principal access to the parcel is from Dixie Highway and Southwest 14 Street.
Southwest 13th Place to the north is a private street owned and serving the multifamily
development to the east. The building’s service area is located to the rear approximately 100 feet
from the east property line. The application exceeds the required parking requirement by 18
spaces. (d) Traffic generation, hours of operation, noise levels and outdoor lighting; Traffic
January 3, 2013
impacts are assessed by the County for any additional traffic trips placed the regional
transportation network. This analysis will be determined with the approval of the plat as
submitted to the County. The applicant has stated that the hours of operation for the store will be
from 8am to 10 pm Tuesday thru Sunday and 7am to 8 pm on Mondays. The application will be
constructing a six foot high masonry wall along the east property line which is required when a
commercial use is located adjacent to a residential parcel. The required wall, landscape buffer
and proposed retention area along the east property line, will help to mitigate any noise that may
be created by the commercial use from the residential property. (e) Alteration of light and air;
Existing light and air flow patterns to adjacent properties should not be diminished with the
construction of the single story, retail store. With lot coverage of only 14%, the proposed
building does not dominate the site in area or building height. (f) Setbacks and buffers – Fences,
walls, landscaping and open space treatment. To be compatible, design treatments must reflect
consideration of adjoining and surrounding development and land use. The vacant commercial
parcel is completely void of plant material, besides grass and weeds. When completed, site plan
12-DBR-8 will provide 24,143 square-feet of landscape area, including 58 trees and 1,160
shrubs. Along the east property line a 6-foot high masonry wall will be constructed. While the
Code requires a 5-foot wide landscape buffer along this wall; the application is providing a
minimum 30 foot wide retention/landscape buffer along the wall.
SUMMARY:
Staff’s review of application 12-DBR-8 has found that the proposed project is consistent with the
goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element of the Deerfield Beach
Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed use is permitted per the Land Development Code.
The landscape plan is approved with the following conditions: 1. Per Section 98-80(b) an
additional seven (7) additional trees are required along the perimeter buffers. Add trees to the
plan to satisfy this requirement. 2. Per Section 98-80(f)(1) sixteen (16) interior trees are required.
Add six (6) additional trees to the interior to satisfy this requirement. 3. Per Section 98-80 (c)
this site is required to have ten (10) trees for interior and terminal parking islands, only eight (8)
trees are provided. Add two (2) additional interior islands and two (2) trees to meet this
requirement. 4. Per Section 98-80 (f)(2) 1,160 shrubs are required. Add an additional 429 shrubs
or groundcover to satisfy this section. 5. One hundred and sixteen (116) flowering shrubs are
required per Section 98-80 (j)(1). Add an additional twenty-four (24) to meet this requirement. 6.
Per Section 98-80 (j)(4) 29 trees or palm should be 14 feet in height or have 12’ of Greywood
respectively. Revise plant list or add trees to meet this requirement. Note: the plan has already
met the maximum number of palms the code allows on the site. 7. Loropetalum rubrum is hardy
to Zone 9, we are in Zone 10b. Change this plant to a more hardy variety. 8. Consider using a
more slender palm (like solitaire) with a smaller root-ball in the very narrow area where
Washingtonians are currently being used. 9. Per section 98-80 (d), show sight distance triangles
on the plans. 10. Trees along the perimeter adjacent to the retention area should be planted on the
top of the bank not on the slope. 11. Overhead wires are adjacent the southern property line
buffer. Trees along this property line do not meet FPL’s criteria for their “Right Tree, Right
Place” program. Revise plans and resubmit.
15
January 3, 2013
to FP&L powerlines are required to comply with the FP&L Right Tree Right Place guidelines. 6.
All swales are required to be sodden with St. Augustine “Floratam” sod and irrigated by an
Approved as submitted. 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 made as required. Responsible
developer/contractor must contact Engineering Department at 954-480-4270 for issuance
guidelines.
acceptable as it relates to collection services and location of garbage/recycling receptacles. Drop
pins are required for both gates to waste enclosure. If you have any concerns pertaining to this
matter please feel free to contact John Biedenharn at 954-480-4382.
Fire/Rescue - This site plan is denied as submitted. 1. Show 50-foot turning radius for fire
apparatus surrounding building.
Jeremy Anderson representing Hanlex Development, LLC, 1825 Southwest Boston Trail,
Apopka, FL, advised that the store will be approximately 9200 square feet and sells name brand
products at a discount price. He said that they went through a lengthy process with Dollar
General before they got to this stage. He added that the physical layout is 10-feet from 14th and
is at an angle and it is difficult to meet the 10-20 feet around the perimeter. The front of the
building comes from a zero setback to the maximum of 33 feet. He added that the building's
position allows for the driveway access to Dixie Highway to be equi-distant from the drives
north and south of it. He said that the sidewalk will be connected with the existing one on Dixie
January 3, 2013
Highway, there is a new bus stop and they worked with FDOT and City staff relative to the
design. As it relates to the landscape, he said that a variety of trees make up the plan; Royal
Poinsettia's are on the corners and they will add interior islands with Magnolia trees.
forward.
Ms. Maggie stated that the lot has been vacant for a long time and she thinks that the project will
be welcomed.
Chairman Drosky asked if the brown and beige color scheme is Dollar General's brand. He said
that the proposed colors do not stand out enough.
Mr. Anderson replied that the Van Dyke Brown will be used on the trim and the other color is
beige/white. He noted that Dollar General has specific guidelines that must be adhered to.
Chairman Drosky asked the Board members what are their feelings on the color scheme.
Mr. Bennett said that although the colors are conservative, they are an improvement. He
suggested that a wall be installed in the back where the 6 a/c units are located or put them on the
roof. He also said that lights should be installed.
Mr. Anderson stated that staff has recommended screening the units and installing a security
device around them.
The Board members agreed that it would be better to put the a/c units on the roof.
Ms. Maggie noted that the church to north of the proposed Dollar General has similar colors and
it looks very nice.
Mr. Ferguson stated that the colors may not be a true representation and any changes would have
to be approved by the Community Appearance Board.
Chairman Drosky recommended that the 6 Sable Palms on the front of the building facing Dixie
Highway and the 2 on the side be replaced with Royal Palm Trees.
forward.
hearing.
Ms. Maggie said that the Sable Palms are pretty and the top is green, but when their fronds are
hanging, they don't look nice.
17
January 3, 2013
12-DBR-8 with the stipulation to move the 6 a/c units to the roof and replace the 3 Sable Palms
on the northeast corner, 3 on the north side of the entrance and 3 on the south side of the entrance
with Royal Palm trees. The motion CARRIED unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – APPLICATION 12--12-2 REVISION 1(formerly 06-M4c-24
Applicant:
WASTE SERVICES FLORIDA, INC. Represented by Marty Lamia
Proposal:
Site plan modification for an existing Class 1 and Class III solid waste
recycling facility to: 1). add 1.95-acre parcel to the site plan for a total of
4.62 acres, and 2). to construct an additional 15,000 square -foot processing building.
Location:
A combined 4.62 acre parcel described as Parcel A-3, LEDDS ENTERPRISES
II, located at 1752 S.W. 43rd Terrace.
Ms. Stevens summarized the application.
SUMMARY BACKGROUND/EXPLANATION
This is a proposal to expand an existing 17,000 square-foot recycling facility that received site plan
approval in August, 2006. In March of 2012, Parcel A-3 was rezoned from Broward County M-4,
Limited Heavy Industrial to the City’s new I-2 Limited heavy industrial district. Development
approval for the parcel now follows the City’s site plan review and approval process. The applicant
has stated that expanded processing operations will be similar to the existing facility, where all
processing operations will be conducted in a building.
Planning & Development Services
BACKGROUND:
Application 12-I-2-2 Revision I is a request to expand an existing 17,000 square-foot recycling
facility that received site plan approval in August, 2006. In March of 2012, Parcel A-3 was
rezoned from Broward County M-4, Limited Heavy Industrial to the City’s new I-2 Limited
heavy industrial district. Development approval for the parcel now follows the City’s site plan
review and approval process. This means that development approval is subject to city staff
review, Community Appearance Board approval, Planning and Zoning Board review and City
Commission approval. The applicant has stated that expanded processing operations will be
similar to the existing facility, where all processing operations will be conducted in a building.
1. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Per Section 98-9, no permit or approval for
designation for this parcel is Industrial. The Industrial land use category permits manufacturing
and utilities as permitted uses. The Broward County Planning Council considers recycling a type
January 3, 2013
of utility use, as it is a form of public sanitation operations. The application as a Class I and
Class III solid waste recycling facility is in compliance with the Deerfield Beach Comprehensive
Plan. 2. Compliance with the Conservation Element Wellfield Protection Area Map: Upon
review of the City’s wellfield protection map, it appears the application is not located within a
Wellfield Zone of influence and therefore development on the parcel should not be subject to the
County’s wellfield pollution regulations. A storage tank license may be required if fuel storage
associated with an emergency generator system or similar equipment is later added to the site
plan. These requirements should be confirmed by the County’s Pollution, Prevention,
Remediation and Air Quality Division before a construction permit is applied for. 3. Compliance
with the Land Development Code: The parcel is zoned, I-2 Limited heavy industrial, per the
Deerfield Beach Land Development Code and official zoning map. By definition, the application
is considered a type of recycling facility. Recycling is a permitted use in the I-2 zoning district
and therefore the use is in compliance with the Land Development Code. 4. Finding of
compatibility of a proposed development with adjacent and neighboring (300 feet) uses and
zoning: Per Section 98-17 (15), there must be a finding of compatibility as defined in the Land
Development Regulations, between the adjacent and neighboring uses (300 feet) and the
proposed development. By definition, compatibility is to be measured based on the following
compatibility characteristics of the proposed development in relationship to the immediate
surrounding area: (a) Permitted uses, structures and activities allowed within the zoning
category:
The adjacent uses surrounding the parcel include a vacant industrial parcel and truck terminal to
the west, a warehouse to the south, vacant industrial parcels to the east (one parcel has site plan
approval for a recycling facility) and a lake to the north. The closest residentially zoned property
is located approximately 1,300 feet to the north across the lake. Except for the lake, which is
zoned A-5c, all of the uses surrounding the property are industrial. The I-2 zoning district was
crafted for heavy industrial uses. There are no commercial or residential uses within 300-feet of
the application. (b) Building location, dimensions, height and floor area; The maximum building
height in the I-2 zoning district is 75 feet. The existing building near the lake is 43-feet tall and
the proposed building will be 37 feet in height. The maximum lot coverage of 50% in the I-2
zoning district would allow 100,598 square feet of floor area under roof. The application is
proposing a 15.9% lot coverage, with 32,000 square feet under roof. The location, height and
size of the buildings are well within the allowances of the Land Development Code.
(c) Location and extent of parking, access drives and service areas; Access to the parcel is from
Wiles Road via a private street (SW 43 Terrace) which services the site. The dead end street does
not connect to any other public roadway and generally does not affect traffic flow on other public
streets. Wiles Road is a principal arterial. It has been designed for truck traffic to the County land
fill, with its major entrance at the SW 43 Terrace intersection. Except for the intersection with
Wiles Road, all truck and vehicular traffic is managed privately using SW 43 Terrace. (d) Traffic
generation, hours of operation, noise levels and outdoor lighting; The applicant has stated that
hours of operation will be from 7 AM to 6 PM, Mondays to Friday and 7AM to 3 PM on
Saturday. The facility will not be opened on Sundays. The hours of operation for the expanded
facility are the same as the existing facility. Noise levels are expected to remain the same (e)
Alteration of light and air; The new building‘s height in the expanded facility is lower than the
existing building’s height. With a lot coverage of 15.9%, light and air patterns should not change
with the approval of this application. (f) Setbacks and buffers – Fences, walls, landscaping and
open space treatment. To be compatible, design treatments must reflect consideration of
19
January 3, 2013
adjoining and surrounding development and land use. The proposed project meets all set back
and landscape buffer requirements. The I-2 zoning district has additional landscaping
requirement along a lake’s edge. It requires a six-foot high masonry wall and two rows of
additional trees to screen and buffer the industrial activities. Since this application is located
along the lake’s edge, the required 30-foot lake landscape buffer was constructed as part of
original site plan approval.
SUMMARY:
Staff’s review of application 12-I2-2 Revision 1 has found that the proposed project is consistent
with the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan, and the proposed use is permitted per the Land Development Code.
The landscape plan is approved with the following conditions: 1. Per Section 98-80(f)(1) thirtysix (36) interior trees are required. Add six (16) additional trees to the interior to satisfy this
requirement. Note: the plan has already met the maximum number of palms the code allows on
the site. 2. Per Section 98-80 (f)(2) 2,300 shrubs are required. Add an additional 550 shrubs or
groundcover to satisfy this section. 3. One hundred and sixteen (116) flowering shrubs are
required per Section 98-80 (j)(1). Add an additional twenty-four (24) to meet this requirement. 4.
Per Section 98-80 (j)(4) 58 trees or palm should be 18 feet in height or have 22’ of Greywood
respectively. Revise plant list or add trees to meet this requirement. Note: the plan has already
met the maximum number of palms the code allows on the site. 5. Existing trees removed from
the site must be mitigated per Section 98-81 (h). The plan submitted shows a number of existing
trees which are proposed for removal. Provide a tree inventory list showing species, size (height
and canopy), caliper and disposition. After eliminating nuisance trees from your existing tree
inventory list, provide mitigation calculation for trees to be removed. Per Section 98-81(2)(b)
Mitigation, once determined, may be achieved two ways; (1) the applicant may plant additional
trees on the site to satisfy this requirement or (2) for trees which cannot be mitigated on site, the
applicant will have to pay into the Beautification Authority Fund. Work with the City Landscape
Architect once mitigation option is determined. 6. Several trees on the site (north and east
property line) are dying or are poor condition; add them to the plan as new trees which have been
removed and replaced.
to FP&L powerlines are required to comply with the FP&L Right Tree Right Place guidelines.
January 3, 2013
6. All swales are required to be sodden with St. Augustine “Floratam” sod and irrigated by an
Approved as submitted.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer/contractor must apply for and receive an
Engineering Permit. During the Engineering permit process, further engineering review will be
made and comments provided as required. Responsible developer/contractor must contact
Engineering Department at 954-480-4270 for issuance guidelines.
acceptable as it relates to collection services and location of garbage/recycling receptacles.
If you have any concerns pertaining to this matter please feel free to contact John Biedenharn at
954-480-4382.
Fire/Rescue
Approved as submitted. A complete set of permitted plans must be submitted for review and
approval prior to all construction. All permitted plans must comply with Broward County Local
Amendments to the Florida Fire Prevention Code, NFPA 1-Fire Code, Florida Edition 2010,
NFPA 101-Life Safety Code, Florida Edition 2010.
Marty Lamia, Crane Atlantis Engineering, representing the applicant stated that the applicant is
proposing a 15,000 square foot building, the processing will be done in doors, the roll up doors
will be closed in the evening, the site will be cleaned up and additional landscaping will be
installed to enhance the property. He added that the building is 40-feet in height and is consistent
with the existing building, meets the fire department requirements and traffic flow. Lastly, he
said that this proposal will be an improvement to the site.
forward.
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by Mr. Bennett and Ms. Maggie to close
the public hearing.
21
January 3, 2013
Chairman Drosky pointed out that City has to be at 70% recycling by 2020 and now it is at 1015%. He asked if this is the genesis for the project.
Mr. Lamia replied yes and that the property was purchased by Waste Services of Florida a few
years ago. He said that they have a big facility in Miami and this project will only handle Class 1
municipal waste and Class 3 construction waste. He said that there is a great need to do this
indoors and in a responsible fashion.
Chairman Drosky asked for clarification on the indoor processing.
Mr. Lamia replied that the sorter separates the waste and it is recycled indoors. He added that
anything that can be transferred, is placed into bins and they are picked up and taken to a proper
facility. He added that this proposal will enable them to process, be more efficient and manage
the waste better.
Chairman Drosky asked if the applicant will reply with all of the staff's comments listed in the
report.
Mr. Lamia replied yes.
Motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by Ms. Maggie to approve Application
12--12-2 Revision 1 (formerly 06-M4c-24) including all of staff's comments. The motion
CARRIED unanimously.
REPORTS
STAFF'S REPORT
Ms. Stevens reported that the February agenda will include a plat and a potential rezoning.
Chairman Drosky asked if any land development items are forth coming.
Assistant City Attorney Cruz said that she doesn't think so.
Chairman Drosky advised that he would like the staff to review Section 98-85 and include a
requirement allowing the Planning and Zoning Board to evaluate the conditional use criteria.
Mr. Ferguson acknowledged that the staff report last month included information that they are
working to overhaul the Land Development Code and the review process as it works through
staff and the boards. He added that Chairman Drosky's recommendation is being reviewed.
CHAIRMAN'S REPORT
There was no chairman's report.
MEMBER'S REPORTS
January 3, 2013
There were no member's reports.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, motion was made by, Vice Chairman Lavoie and second by,
Mr. Bennett to adjourn. The motion CARRIED unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at
8:35 p.m.
_____________________________
Planning and Zoning Board
23
DEERFIELD BEACH
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
Agenda Item #1
Thursday, February 7, 2013
APPLICATION 13-P-193
Applicant: RAMCO-GERSHENSON PROPERTIES, LP, represented by Pulice Land Surveyors
Proposal: To plat a 0.471-acre parcel for commercial use and to be known as the TIJUANA TAXI
plat.
Location: A portion of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 7, Township 48 South, Range 43 East,
located at 1015 South Federal Highway.
This is the plat that goes with the site plan that was reviewed by the Board at the last meeting.
The property is the new vacant, former Crabby Jack’s site in the Rivertowne Square Shopping
Center.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Recommendation to the City Commission on the proposed plat application.
ATTACHMENT:
Notification letter and map
Staff Development Review Report
PUBLIC NOTICE
APPLICATION
13-P-193
Dear Property Owner:
January 25, 2013
This is to notify you that the PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD of the City of
Deerfield Beach, a municipal corporation of Florida, shall hear an application for:
RAMCO-GERSHENSON PROPERTIES, LP
Represented by Pulice Land Surveyors
To plat a 0.471-acre parcel for commercial use and to be
known as the TIJUANA TAXI plat.
A portion of the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 7, Township 48
South, Range 43 East, located at 1015 South Federal Highway.
A public hearing will be held on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2013, at 7:00 p.m.
in the City Commission Meeting Room. All interested parties may appear in
person to offer evidence in support of or against the proposal. Further
information may be obtained from the Planning Office during business hours in
City Hall, 150 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441, phone: (954) 4804206.
Any person wishing to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning
Board with respect to any of the above, will need a record of the proceedings
and for such purpose, may need to insure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is based. The above notice is required by State Law (FS
286.0105.)
Anyone desiring a verbatim transcript shall have the
responsibility, at his/her own expense, to arrange for the presence at the
hearing of a certified court reporter. A full transcript of the proceedings will be
needed in order to appeal any decision of the Board. If anyone requires auxiliary
aids for communication, please call (954) 480-4206.
GERALD R. FERGUSON, AICP
F E D
E
SE 8 ST
RO
SE 6 AVE
2
)
DUVAL COURT
PROFESSIONAL
CENTRE CONDO
BIN
JOHN
SO
S
NR
P ROGER
D
& GREGORY
A ROGERS
PARCEL A
S
CHOOL
EXXON/
U.S.#1
& SE 10TH
STREET
PARCEL A
10
SE
SCHWARB
PLAT
SE
ST
10
Public Notification Boundary
FIRST UNION /
DEERFIELD BEACH
PLAT
F E D
E R A
L
PARCEL A
A
SE
ST
PARCEL A
VERTOWN
MANOR
CONDO
F
THE
SE 9 AVE
ST
LOIS LANE
UJALSKI
B
PLAT
10
H W Y
ST
SE 10 CT
PLAZA LEF
SE 9 AVE
SE 11 ST
SE 11 S
Subject Property
RICHWAY AT DEERFIELD BEACH
F E D
E R A
L
SE 6 AVE
RIVERTOWNE SQUARE
PARCEL A
Public Hearing Notice Map
SE 13 ST
TARGET
Plat Application 13-P-193
S
.
SE 12 S
SE 9 AVE
PARCEL A
HOUSE
PLAZA
CONDOMINIUM
H W Y
E
S
SE 6 AVE
PARCEL A
C2
DEERFIELD RIDGE SE
10
SE 6 AVE
SE
SE
0
1015 South Federal Highway
For additional information
Call the Planning Department at 954-480-4206
100
200 Feet
Development Review Committee
Summary Report
Development Plan Application Review
General Information
Application No.
13-P-193
Applicant:
Tijuana Taxi Company
Agent:
Jane Storms (Pulice Land Surveyors)
Requested Action/Description:
To plat a 0.471-acre parcel for
commercial use to be known as the
TIJUANA TAXI plat.
Location:
1015 S. Federal Highway
Legal Description:
A portion the NW ¼ of the NE ¼ of
Section 7, Township 48 South,
Range 43 East.
Size:
0.471-acre
Existing Zoning:
B2
Existing Land Use:
Vacant
Future Land Use Plan Designation:
Commercial
January 22, 2013
Page 1 of 3
Application 13-P-193
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
East:
South:
West:
Existing Land Use
Bank
Office & Retail
Shopping Center
Residential, Multi-Family
Zoning
B-2
B-2
B-2
RM-15
Applicable Regulations:
Deerfield Beach Land Development
Code
Plat Restrictions:
None
Department Comments & Requirements
Planning & Growth Management
BACKGROUND:
This plat is part of the required building approval process to construct a 5,017 square-foot
restaurant on the former Crabby Jack’s parcel in the Rivertowne Square Shopping Plaza.
It is being submitted in conjunction with site plan application 08-B2-107 Revision 4 for the
new restaurant. Per Broward County platting requirements, no local government may
grant an application for a building permit for the construction of a principal building on a
parcel of land, unless a plat including the parcel for the permit has been approved by the
Broward County Commission. Since the entire Rivertowne Square parcel is unplatted, a
new principal building (restaurant) would not be permitted without first obtaining approval
from the County Commission. The County requires approval from the City as part of their
approval process for the plat.
1. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan: - Per Section 98-9, no permit approval for
development of land shall be approved which does not comply with the goals,
objectives and policies (GOPs) of the Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan. The
Future Land Use (FLU) Map designation for this parcel is Commercial. The proposed
restaurant use is also a permitted use in the future land use category of Commercial
and supports the intent of the category. The commercial land use parcel is located
within a larger commercial district generally located along the entire Federal Highway
corridor. The application is in compliance with the Deerfield Beach Comprehensive
Plan.
2. Compliance with the Conservation Element Wellfield Protection Area Map: Upon
review of the City’s Wellfield Protection Map, it appears that Parcel A is not located in
a wellfield protection zone of influence and therefore, development on the parcel
should not be subject to the County’s wellfield pollution regulations. A storage tank
license may be required if fuel storage associated with an emergency generator
system will be included on the site plan. These requirements should be confirmed by
the County’s Pollution, Prevention, Remediation and Air Quality Division before a
construction permit is applied for.
January 22, 2013
Page 2 of 3
3. Transportation Concurrency Requirements: The plat is located within the Northeast
Transportation Concurrency Management Area. Concurrency requirements for the
parcel will be assessed by the County upon their review of the plat and findings of trip
generation.
4. Dimensional Requirements: Per Section 98-54, restaurants with outdoor seating not
in excess of 12 are a permitted use in the B-2 zoning district. Outdoor seating for
restaurants in excess of 12 requires conditional use approval. The dimensional
requirements of the B-2 highway business zoning district would allow a maximum of
20,516 square feet of commercial use on Parcel A. Therefore, the proposed
restrictive note of 5,100 square feet of commercial use is in accordance with the
application’s zoning district and corresponding floor area for Parcel A.
SUMMARY:
Staff’s review of application 13-P-193 has found that the plat’s proposed restrictive use is
consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the
proposed use is permitted per the Land Development Code.
Not applicable.
This site plan is not approved by the Engineering Department until a resubmittal reflecting
the following comments are addressed:
 Director of Environmental Services/City Engineer Charles DaBrusco P.E.
requests his name and Florida license number be placed where the City
Engineer area signature box is. Mr. DaBrusco’s license number is 42532.
 Under the Surveyor’s notes area on Note 1, the Parcel “A” is restricted to
“5,100 square feet”. The number 5,100 is handwritten and a resubmittal sheet
is requested showing that number in typed format.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer/contractor must apply for and
receive an Engineering Permit. During the Engineering permit process, further engineering
review will be made and comments made as required. Responsible developer/contractor
must contact Engineering Department at 954-480-4270 for issuance guidelines.
Not applicable.
Fire/Rescue
Not applicable.
This report contains the requirements of the Deerfield Beach Development Review Committee
members relative to this site development plan application. If there are any questions or issues
regarding compliance with any of the requirements in this report, the respective department
should be contacted directly.
January 22, 2013
Page 3 of 3
DEERFIELD BEACH
Agenda Item #2
APPLICATION 06-B1-181 REVISION 3
Applicant: UNITED GROWTH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC represented by Kimely-Horn and
Associates
Proposal: Site plan modification to construct a 48,425 square-foot commercial addition to the
existing 192,934 square-foot Super Target commercial center totaling 241,364 square
feet of commercial use and to create two separate out-parcels, 0.694 acres and 0.725
aces in size respectively, for future commercial development.
Location: A portion of Parcel A, THE LAST PLAT OF DEER CREEK, together with a portion of
Parcel A BUTLER’S CORNER, located at 3317, 3349 and 3599 West Hillsboro
Boulevard.
This site plan is for the second phase of development of the shopping center at the northeast
corner of Hillsboro Boulevard and Powerline Road. The first phase was the Super Target. At that
time, a future development site was designated. This second phase adds retail spaces and
delineates two out parcels.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Recommendation to the City Commission on the proposed application for site plan modification.
ATTACHMENT:
Notification letter and map
Staff Development Review Report
PUBLIC NOTICE
APPLICATION
06-B1-181 REVISION 3
Dear Property Owner:
December 21, 2012
This is to notify you that the PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD of the City of
Deerfield Beach, a municipal corporation of Florida, shall hear an application for:
UNITED GROWTH CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC
Represented by Kimley-Horn and Associates
Site plan modification to construct a 48,425 square-foot
commercial addition to the existing 192,934 square-foot Super
Target commercial center totaling 241,364 square feet of
commercial use and to create two separate out-parcels, 0.694
acres and 0.725 aces in size respectively, for future
commercial development.
A portion of Parcel A, THE LAST PLAT OF DEER CREEK,
together with a portion of Parcel A BUTLER’S CORNER,
located at 3317, 3349 and 3599 West Hillsboro Boulevard.
A public hearing will be held on THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2013, at 7:00 p.m.
in the City Commission Meeting Room. All interested parties may appear in
person to offer evidence in support of or against the proposal. Further
information may be obtained from the Planning Office during business hours in
City Hall, 150 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Deerfield Beach, FL 33441, phone: (954) 4804206.
Any person wishing to appeal any decision made by the Planning and Zoning
Board with respect to any of the above, will need a record of the proceedings
and for such purpose, may need to insure that a verbatim record of the
proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon
which the appeal is based. The above notice is required by State Law (FS
286.0105.)
Anyone desiring a verbatim transcript shall have the
responsibility, at his/her own expense, to arrange for the presence at the
hearing of a certified court reporter. A full transcript of the proceedings will be
needed in order to appeal any decision of the Board. If anyone requires auxiliary
aids for communication, please call (954) 480-4206.
GERALD R. FERGUSON, AICP
P O
PARCEL L-2
LAKE
DR
PARCEL L
JEFFE RSON DR
Public Notification Boundary
PT
N
20
9
THE LAKES OF DEER CREEK
19
PA
R
CE
LL
-1
9
10
18
LA
K
11
16
AV
E
PARCEL L-3
36
YORKVILLE
DR
13
14
30
31
32
THE LAKES OF DEER CREE
PARCEL L-20
29
NW
SUPER TARGET
R D
PARCEL 3
PARCEL 2
THE LAST PLAT OF DEER CREEK
GRAND UNION DEERFIELD BEACH
PARCEL A
BUTLER'S CORNER
P O W E R L I N E
SHOPPING
CENTER
PARCEL A
PARCEL A
BLVD
15
ES
12
PARCEL B
DEER CREEK BANK
MOBIL 10-438
PLAT
COU NTRY C LU B
NW 36
AV E
17
30
CR LAKE
EE S O
KT
OW F DE
LA
NH E R
KE
OM
PT
SID
ES
PA
EW
RC
EL
AY
L -1
8
21
26
ES
7
K
LA
22
BELLE TERRE OF
HILLSBORO
FINANCIAL
CENTRE
PARCEL A
WEST DEERFIELD BEACH
KOHL
SD
D C PHILLIPS SD
PARCEL B
SW 1 ST
S
SW 1 ST
SW 1
SW 1 CT
SW 1
NEASHAM PLAT
Public Hearing Notice Map
DEER RUN
PARK
NORTH
PARCEL B
.
PARCEL A
SW 1 CT
SW 34 AVE
DEERFIELD
MALL
P O W E R L I N E
PARCEL A
SW 32 TER
R D
Subject Property
B L V D
H I L L S B O R O
W
B L V D
SW 34 AVE
L S B O R O
TRACT A
N
PARCEL A
Site Plan Application 06-B1-181 Revision 3
3317, 3349, and 3599 West Hillsboro Boulevard
300
150
For additional information
Call the Planning Department at 954-480-4206
0
300 Feet
Development Review Committee
Summary Report
Development Plan Application Review
General Information
Application No.
06-B1-181 Revision 3
Applicant:
United Growth Capital Management, LLC
Agent:
Kimley-Horn and Associates
Requested Action/Description:
Site plan approval to construct a
48,425
square-foot
commercial
addition to an existing 192,934
commercial center, totaling 241,359
square feet of commercial use.
Location:
3317, 3349 and 3599 W. Hillsboro
Boulevard
Legal Description:
A portion of Parcel A, THE LAST
PLAT OF DEER CREEK, together
with a portion of Parcel A BUTLER’S
CORNER.
Size:
5.4-acres
(as part of a 22.99-acre parcel)
Existing Zoning:
B-1
Existing Land Use:
Commercial Shopping Center
January 28, 2013
Page 1 of 6
Application 06-B1-181 Rev. 3
Future Land Use Plan Designation:
Commercial
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North:
East:
South:
West:
Existing Land Use
Multi-Family
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Zoning
RM-15
B-1
B-1
B-1
Applicable Regulations:
Deerfield Beach Land Development
Code
Plat Restrictions:
None
Department Comments & Requirements
Planning & Growth Management
BACKGROUND:
In December, 2007, the subject parcel received site plan approval to demolish an existing
shopping center and construct a 190,346 square-foot Super Target store. In conjunction
with that application, site improvements were approved and constructed to serve an
additional 59,000 square feet of future commercial use. Since 2007, the “future
commercial area” has remained vacant as a grassed, building pad adjacent to the store.
Application 06-B1-181 Revision 3 is a request to construct 48,425 square-feet of
commercial use on that building pad. The existing Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant,
parking lots and drainage areas will remain the same. The parking and dimensional
requirements for both site plans have been included in the total project review.
COMMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS:
1. The Community Appearance Board approved this application on January 13, 2013
with the stipulation that the Christmas Palms in front of the stores be replaced with
five Royal Palms and the three Christmas Palms located at the southeast corner of
the building be replaced with a canopy tree such as a Royal Poinciana.
1. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Per Section 98-9, no permit or approval
for development of land shall be approved which does not comply with the goals,
objectives and policies (GOPs) of the Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan. The
Future Land Use (FLU) Map designation for this parcel is Commercial. The
commercial land use category permits retail sales and service use, office and other
general commercial uses typically found in a shopping center. Therefore the
application to expand the commercial use on the approved site plan for retail sales is
in compliance with the Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan FLU element.
January 28, 2013
Page 2 of 6
2. Compliance with the Conservation Element Wellfield Protection Area Map: Upon
review of the City’s wellfield protection map, it appears that the application is not
located within a Wellfield Zone of influence. However any special environmental
requirements should be confirmed by the County’s Pollution, Prevention, Remediation
and Air Quality Division before a construction permit is applied for.
3. Compliance with the Land Development Code: The parcel is zoned B-1, business,
community per the Deerfield Beach Land Development Code and official map. While
the application has not identified specific tenants; stores, retail (excluding stores
which sell firearms) would be a permitted use in the B-1 zoning district. Therefore the
proposed use of seven, retail stores is in compliance with its zoning designation.
4. Finding of compatibility of a proposed development with adjacent and neighboring
(300 feet) uses and zoning: Per Section 98-17 (15), there must be a finding of
compatibility as defined in the Land Development Regulations, between the adjacent
and neighboring uses (300 feet) and the proposed development. By definition,
compatibility is to be measured based on the following compatibility characteristics of
the proposed development in relationship to the immediate surrounding area:
(a) Permitted uses, structures and activities allowed within the zoning category:
The adjacent uses surrounding the parcel include: multi-family apartments to the
north, medical office and a health and fitness club to the east, a bank and
Hillsboro Boulevard to the south and a commercial shopping center to the west.
The parcel is considered part of the major commercial node, centered on the
intersection of Powerline Road and Hillsboro Boulevard.
(b) Building location, dimensions, height and floor area;
The maximum height for a structure in the B-1 zoning district is 45 feet. While the
building is considered a one-story structure, it will have a clear interior height of
20 feet. With the proposed raised parapets and architectural elements, the
façade of the building will match the existing Target store with a maximum height
of 42 feet. The proposed 241,359 square-foot commercial center is well within
the dimension requirements of the B-1 zoning district. The proposed lot coverage
of 22% rather than the maximum 50% means the project’s footprint is
approximately 300,740 square-feet smaller than allowed.
(c) Location and extent of parking, access drives and service areas;
The existing parking lot, driveways, and entrances will serve the commercial
addition. The application is not proposing any expansion of the parking lot or
drainage areas. The application requires a total of 831 parking spaces. The
existing parking lot contains 960 spaces.
(d) Traffic generation, hours of operation, noise levels and outdoor lighting;
The parcels are accessed via Powerline Road to the west, Deer Creek Country
Club Blvd. to the east and Hillsboro Blvd. to the south. Both Powerline Road and
Hillsboro Blvd are classified as principal six-lane arterials. The applicant has
stated that the retail hours of operation for the stores will be similar to the Super
Target store and the neighboring retail stores. All operations will be performed
within the building with outside activity limited to loading and unloading. As part of
the Super Target site plan approval, a concrete wall was constructed along the
entire north property line between the apartments and commercial parcel. The
new loading areas will be located a minimum of 120 feet from the north property
line.
January 28, 2013
Page 3 of 6
(e) Alteration of light and air;
The height and mass of the proposed building is in keeping with the size of the
adjacent Super Target. With a 22% lot coverage for all structures, rather than the
maximum 50%, the expanded commercial center will not significantly affect light
and air flow patterns to adjacent properties.
(f) Setbacks and buffers – Fences, walls, landscaping and open space treatment.
To be compatible, design treatments must reflect consideration of adjoining and
surrounding development and land use.
(g) The proposed project will meet all set back and landscape buffer requirements.
The existing landscaping and retention ponds will not be modified with this
application. New landscaping and site furniture will be constructed in front of the
retail addition to create a pedestrian “streetscape” connection between the Super
Target and new stores.
(h) The Community Appearance Board approved this application on January 23,
2013 with the stipulation that the Christmas Palms in the front of the stores be
replaced with five Royal Palms and the three Christmas Palms located at the
Southeast corner of the building be replaced with a canopy tree such as a Royal
Poinciana.
SUMMARY:
Staff’s review of application 06-B1-181 Revision 3 has found that the proposed project is
consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Future Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan, and that the proposed use is permitted per the Land Development
Code.
The landscape plan is approved with the following conditions:
1. Per Section 98-80 (j)(4) 50% of the trees or palms are to have a minimum of 12
feet of Greywood. Revise palms in plant list to meet this code requirement.
2. Based on the approved site landscape plan on file with the City, several trees are
missing or are in poor condition. Therefore, the site does not meet code. Submit
a plan to bring the site into compliance.
Department.
2. Landscape permits are required before any planting occurs. Permits are obtained from
the Building Department.
3. Trees are to be planted at a depth so that the root-flare and top of first order root(s) are
fully visible, with 10% of the height of the rootball above grade. Reflect this in planting
detail.
January 28, 2013
Page 4 of 6
4. An irrigation plan and specifications for the system must be included with the landscape
plans when submitting for permit. The irrigation system shall be designed to have a
minimum of 100% coverage. The system must include a rain sensor.
5. All trees adjacent to FP&L powerlines are required to comply with the FP&L Right Tree
Right Place guidelines.
6. All swales are required to be sodded with St. Augustine “Floratam” sod and irrigated by
an automatic sprinkler system with 100% coverage.
7. Landscape ordinance specifications on irrigation and installations supersede any notes
on the plan.
8. All proposed plant material on site must meet FL #1 standards as stated in Code.
9. All landscape plant materials, installation, maintenance and preservation shall be in
accordance with the City of Deerfield Beach Land Development Code, Section 98-80
and 98-81.
10. It is required that the landscape contractor schedule an on-site pre-construction
meeting with the City Landscape Architect.
11. The completed installation shall be certified by the firm providing the design, per 9880 (t).
12. Provide 2 sets of Signed & Sealed as-built plans to Planning and Development
Services Department.
This site plan is not approved by the Engineering Department for the following conditions:


Director of Environmental Services/City Engineer Charles DaBrusco P.E.
requests that drainage structure details and yard drain details be submitted.
Request that both trash dumpster enclosure drains must drain to the sewer
system and not the drainage system. Please make appropriate update.
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 made as required. Responsible
developer/contractor must contact Engineering Department at 954-480-4270 for issuance
guidelines.
This site plan has been reviewed by the Solid Waste Operations Division and was found to
be acceptable as it relates to collection services and location of garbage/recycling
receptacles. Drop pins are required for both gates to waste enclosure.
If you have any concerns pertaining to this matter please feel free to contact John
Biedenharn at 954-480-4382.
January 28, 2013
Page 5 of 6
Fire/Rescue
This site plan is denied as submitted.
1. Show all fire hydrants throughout plan.
2. Show location of the fire department connection and fire backflow for fire sprinkler
system.
3. Show location for a fire alarm system.
4. Show fire department fire apparatus access throughout plan with 20-foot wide road
and 50-foot turning radius.
5. Show location for Knox Box location.
This report contains the requirements of the Deerfield Beach Development Review Committee members
relative to this site development plan application. If there are any questions or issues regarding
compliance with any of the requirements in this report, the respective department should be contacted
directly.
January 28, 2013
Page 6 of 6
DEERFIELD BEACH
Agenda Item #3
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
Applicant:
Proposal:
Proposed amendment to the City of Deerfield Beach’s Land Development Code
revising Section 98-103 relating to reasonable accommodations.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Recommendation to the City Commission on the proposed ordinance revising the Land
Development Code as described above.
ATTACHMENT:
Memo from City Attorney explaining the rationale for the proposed revision.
The proposed ordinance amending the Land Development Code.
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW S. MAURODIS, P.L.
710 East Hillsboro Boulevard, Suite 200
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441
Telephone (954) 429-1440
Facsimile (954) 429-1442
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City of Deerfield Beach Planning & Zoning Board
FROM:
Andrew S. Maurodis, City Attorney
DATE:
February 1, 2013
RE:
Amendment to Reasonable Accommodation Process
The proposed ordinance provides for amendments to the Reasonable
Accommodation process. The Reasonable Accommodation process is intended
to comply with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). It
provides for the City to make adjustments to its regulations to comply with the
ADA on a case by case basis. This amendment refines the procedure and takes
the Director of Planning out of the process and puts it in the hands of a neutral
special master.
ORDINANCE NO. 2013/
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DEERFIELD
BEACH,
FLORIDA,
AMENDING
SECTION
RELATING
TO
REASONABLE
ACCOMMODATIONS,
98-103
REVISING THE PROCESS AND CONTAINING OTHER REVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT
CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City Commission wishes to provide a neutral magistrate to hear
reasonable accommodation claims; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 98-103 of the City of Deerfield Beach Land Development Code is
hereby created to read as follows:
Sec. 98-103 - Reasonable accommodation procedures.
(a) This section implements the policy of the City of Deerfield Beach for processing of
requests for reasonable accommodation to its ordinances, rules, policies, and procedures for
persons with disabilities as provided by the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act (42 U.S.C.
3601, et seq.) ("FHA") and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Section
12131, et seq.) ("ADA"). For purposes of this section, a "disabled" individual or person is an
individual that qualifies as disabled and/or handicapped under the FHA and/or ADA. Any person
who is disabled (or qualifying entities) may request a reasonable accommodation with respect to
the city's land use or zoning laws, rules, policies, practices and/or procedures as provided by the
FHA and the ADA pursuant to the procedures set out in this section.
(b) A request by an applicant for reasonable accommodation under this section shall be made in
writing by completion of a reasonable accommodation request form, which form is maintained
by (and shall be submitted to) the director of planning (director). The reasonable accommodation
form shall contain such questions and requests for information as are necessary for processing
the reasonable accommodation request.
For a reasonable accommodation request involving
housing or zoning, the application, shall, at a minimum, require the following information:
1.
Name and contact information for Applicant or applicant’s authorized representative;
and
2.
Address of housing or other location at which accommodation is requested; and
3.
Description of reasonable accommodation required; and
1
4.
A description of the accommodation and the specific regulation(s) and/or procedure(s)
from which accommodation is sought; and
5.
Reason(s) the reasonable accommodation may be necessary for the individual with
disabilities to use and enjoy the housing or other service; and
6.
A statement as to whether the applicant is requesting the accommodation in order to
house more than three unrelated people in a single-family dwelling; and
7.
The number of persons in one dwelling necessary to be financially viable; and
8.
The number of persons in one dwelling necessary to be therapeutically beneficial; and
(c) Should the information provided by the disabled individual to the city include medical
information or records, including records indicating the medical condition, diagnosis or medical
history of the disabled individual, such individual may, at the time of submitting such medical
information, request that the city, to the extent allowed by law, treat such medical information as
confidential information of the disabled individual. The city shall thereafter endeavor to provide
written notice to the disabled individual, and/or their representative, or any request received by
the city for disclosure of the medical information or documentation which the disabled individual
has previously requested be treated as confidential by the city. The city will cooperate with the
disabled individual, to the extent allowed by law, in actions initiated by such individual to
oppose the disclosure of such medical information or documentation, but the city shall have no
obligation to initiate, prosecute or pursue any such action, or to incur any legal or other expenses
(whether by retention of outside counsel or allocation of internal resources) in connection
therewith, and may comply with any judicial order without prior notice to the disabled
individual.
(d) The director, or his/her designee, shall have the authority to consider and act on requests for
reasonable accommodation, after notice and public hearing to receive comments, input and
information from the public (provided, however, the director, or designee, shall not be required
to render their decision at said public hearing). When a reasonable accommodation request form
has been completed and submitted to the director, it will be referred to the director, or designee,
for review and consideration. The director, or designee, shall issue a written determination within
45 days of the date of receipt of a completed application and may, in accordance with federal
law, (1) grant the accommodation request, (2) grant a portion of the request and deny a portion of
the request, and/or impose conditions upon the grant of the request, or (3) deny the request, in
accordance with federal law. Any such denial shall be in writing and shall state the grounds
therefore. All written determinations shall give notice of the right to appeal. The notice of
determination shall be sent to the requesting party (i.e. the disabled individual or his/her
representative) by certified mail, return receipt requested. If reasonably necessary to reach a
determination on the request for reasonable accommodation, the director, or designee, may, prior
to the end of said 45-day period, request additional information from the requesting party,
specifying in sufficient detail what information is required. The requesting party shall have 15
days after the date of the request for additional information to provide the requested information.
In the event a request for additional information is made, the 45-day period to issue a written
2
determination shall no longer be applicable, and the director, or designee, shall issue a written
determination within 30 days after receipt of the additional information. If the requesting party
fails to provide the requested additional information within said 15-day period, the director, or
designee, shall issue a written notice advising that the requesting party had failed to timely
submit the additional information and therefore the request for reasonable accommodation shall
be deemed abandoned and/or withdrawn and no further action by the city with regard to said
reasonable accommodation request shall be required.
(d) The Hearing Officer with authority to review vested rights applications under section 98-33
of the Land Development Code is empowered to and shall have the authority to consider and act
on requests for reasonable accommodation, after notice and public hearing to receive comments,
input and information from the public (provided, however, the Hearing officer, or designee, shall
not be required to render their decision at said public hearing). When a reasonable
accommodation request form has been completed and submitted to the Hearing officer, it will be
referred to the Hearing officer, for a hearing, review and consideration.
1.
The Hearing officer, or designee, shall issue a written determination within forty-five
(45) days of the date of receipt of a completed application, except as provided in
paragraph 3., below, and may, in accordance with federal law, (1) grant the
accommodation request, (2) grant a portion of the request and deny a portion of the
request, and/or impose conditions upon the grant of the request as he/she deems
necessary and appropriate to mitigate any public safety concerns which pose a
significant risk to children under age 18 or neighboring residential communities or the
residential character of those communities, or (3) deny the request, in accordance with
federal law. The Hearing officer shall issue a written order on the request which either
approves the request, denies the request, or approves the request with conditions
and/or modifications. If the request is denied, the order shall state the grounds
therefore. All written determinations shall give notice of the right to appeal.
2. The notice of determination shall be sent to the requesting party (i.e. the disabled
individual(s) or representative) by certified mail, return receipt requested.
3. If reasonably necessary to reach a determination on the request for reasonable
accommodation, the Hearing officer, or designee, may, prior to the end of said fortyfive (45)-day period, request additional information from the requesting party,
specifying in sufficient detail what information is required. The requesting party shall
have fifteen (15) days after the date of the request for additional information to provide
the requested information. In the event a request for additional information is made, the
forty-five (45)-day period to issue a written determination shall no longer be applicable,
and the Hearing officer, or designee, shall issue a written determination within thirty
(30) days after receipt of the additional information. If the requesting party fails to
provide the requested additional information within said fifteen (15)-day period, the
Hearing officer, or designee, shall issue a written notice advising that the requesting
party had failed to timely submit the additional information and therefore the request
for reasonable accommodation shall be deemed abandoned and/or withdrawn and no
3
further action by the city with regard to said reasonable accommodation request shall
be required.
(e) In determining whether the reasonable accommodation request shall be granted or denied,
the requesting party shall be required to establish that they are protected under the FHA and/or
ADA by demonstrating that they are handicapped or disabled, as defined in the FHA and/or
ADA. Although the definition of disability is subject to judicial interpretation, for purposes of
this ordinance the disabled individual must show: (i) a physical or mental impairment which
substantially limits one or major life activities; (ii) a record of having such impairment; or (iii)
that they are regarded as having such impairment. Next, the requesting party will have to
demonstrate that the proposed accommodations being sought are reasonable and necessary to
afford handicapped/disabled persons equal opportunity to use and enjoy housing. In addition, for
a reasonable accommodation request relating to housing or zoning in or directly abutting
occupied single family residential properties, schools, or day care centers, the hearing officer
may consider (to the extent lawfully permitted by court rulings and federal and state statutes) the
impact granting the accommodation would have on the health or safety of others, whether
granting the accommodation would result in substantial physical damage to the property of
others, or whether the accommodation would have a material negative effect on the residential
character of a single family zoning district The foregoing (as interpreted by the courts) shall be
the basis for a decision upon a reasonable accommodation request made by the director, or
designee, or by the city commission in the event of an appeal. The Hearing Officer shall issue a
written order on the request which approves the request, denies the request, or approves the
request with conditions and/or modifications.
(f) Within 30 days after the director's, or designee's, determination on a reasonable
accommodation request is mailed to the requesting party, any other or any order or action of the
director with respect to the application or this section, such applicant or the City Manager may
appeal the decision. All appeals shall contain a statement containing sufficient detail of the
grounds for the appeal. Appeals shall be to the city commission who shall, after public notice and
a public hearing, render a determination as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event later
than 60 days after an appeal has been filed.
(g) There shall be no fee imposed by the city in connection with a request for reasonable
accommodation under this section or an appeal of a determination on such request to the city
commission, and the city shall have no obligation to pay a requesting party's (or an appealing
party's, as applicable) attorneys fees or costs in connection with the request, or an appeal.
(h) While an application for reasonable accommodation, or appeal or a determination of same,
is pending before the city, the city will not enforce the subject zoning ordinance, rules, policies,
and procedures against the applicant.
(i)
The following general provisions shall be applicable:
(1) The city shall display a notice in the city's public notice bulletin board (and shall
maintain copies available for review in the planning department, the building/permitting
4
division, and the city clerk's office), advising the public disabled individuals (and qualifying
entities) may request reasonable accommodation as provided herein.
(2) A disabled individual may apply for a reasonable accommodation on his/her own
behalf or may be represented at all stages of the reasonable accommodation process by a
person designated by the disabled individual.
(3) The city shall provide such assistance and accommodation as is required pursuant to
FHA and ADA in connection with a disabled person's request for reasonable
accommodation, including, without limitation, assistance with reading application
questions, responding to questions, completing the form, filing an appeal; and appearing at
a hearing, etc. to ensure the process is accessible.
(j) Any reasonable accommodation received shall be deemed revoked if the applicant or the
property upon which the accommodation is granted is found in violation of any provision of the
order granting the reasonable accommodation by a court of law or by the special master hearing
code enforcement cases. The order on the Reasonable Accommodation Request shall be
considered a code requirement for code enforcement purposes and violation of the order shall be
deemed a violation of the code.
SECTION 3. It is the intention of the City Commission and it is hereby ordained that the
provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Land Development Code of
the City of Deerfield Beach, and that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered to
accomplish such intent.
SECTION 4. Should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof,
any paragraph, sentence or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other
than the part declared to be invalid.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
PASSED 1ST READING ON THIS _____ DAY OF ____________________, 2013
PASSED 2ND READING ON THIS _____ DAY OF ____________________, 2013
____________________________________
PEGGY NOLAND, MAYOR
5
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
ADA GRAHAM JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
Deerfield/Ordinance/Reasonable Accommodation Amend. (1/16/2013)
6
DEERFIELD BEACH
Agenda Item #4
LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
Applicant:
Proposal:
Proposed amendment to the City of Deerfield Beach’s Land Development Code
revising Section 98-33 relating to vested rights determinations.
REQUESTED ACTION:
Recommendation to the City Commission on the proposed ordinance revising the Land
Development Code as described above.
ATTACHMENT:
Memo from City Attorney explaining the rationale for the proposed revision.
The proposed ordinance amending the Land Development Code.
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW S. MAURODIS, P.L.
710 East Hillsboro Boulevard, Suite 200
Deerfield Beach, FL 33441
Telephone (954) 429-1440
Facsimile (954) 429-1442
MEMORANDUM
TO:
City of Deerfield Beach Planning & Zoning Board
FROM:
Andrew S. Maurodis, City Attorney
DATE:
February 1, 2013
RE:
Amendment to Vested Rights Ordinance
The proposed ordinance provides for amendments to the Vested Rights process.
The ordinance more fully defines what is a vested right which can be the subject
of a determination and refines the process. It will allow rejection of a petition
which, on its face, fails to meet the criteria of the ordinance thus saving valuable
time and staff effort.
ORDINANCE NO. 2012/
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DEERFIELD
BEACH,
FLORIDA,
AMENDING
SECTION
98-33 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO VESTED
RIGHTS
DETERMINATIONS;
PROVIDING
FOR
REVISED
REQUIREMENTS
AND
PROCEDURES
AND
REVISED
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SPECIAL MASTER PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN THE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, the City Commission wishes to revise the provisions of the Land
Development Code relating to vested rights determinations;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DEERFIELD BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 98-33 of the City of Deerfield Beach Land Development Code is
hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 98-33. - Vested rights determinations.
(a)
Vested rights determination. Any owner of property or authorized agent thereof may
petition the city for a determination as to any vested development rights to any parcel of
property located within the City of Deerfield Beach.
The vested rights claim must be based upon some official action of the City of
Deerfield Beach . For the purpose of this section the official action must be any of
the following:
A. The application of an adopted ordinance which substantially affects the
permitted uses within a zoning district or substantially changes the land
development regulations in a zoning district to an existing and valid
development permit where said ordinance will substantially affect the ability of
the holder of the permit or property owner to development the property in
conformance with the permit.
B. The adoption of an ordinance or other official measure directly affecting and
applicable to property which the owner of property claims to violate a
development right which would be considered vested under Florida law.
The application shall, at a minimum, contain the name and address of the applicant and
owner of the property, the location of the property which is the subject to the vested
rights determination, a legal description of said property, the specific nature and extent
of the vested rights claimed, reference to any statute, regulation or ordinance provisions
1
bearing on the claim, and the specific legal and factual basis for the claim of vested
rights including a description of any actions or omissions by the state, county, city or
owner (or its agents) which are claimed to have vested rights. The applicant shall also
specify any city actions or proposed actions which are claimed to jeopardize the vested
rights.
(b) Procedure. Any owner (or his authorized agent who may be a contract purchaser) who
wishes a vested rights determination shall apply for same on a form to be provided by the
planning department as specified above. Upon receipt of the application:
(1) The director of planning shall make a determination as to whether the request for
vested rights contains the materials listed in paragraph (a) above and satisfies the
requirements of subsection (a) above have been satisfied for consideration of a vested rights
determination request. The city attorney shall advise the director of planning in this
determination. If the director of planning determines that the request does not contain the
required materials or does not satisfy the requirements of subsection (a) for consideration,
he/she shall provide a written notice of said fact to the applicant which states the basis for
his/her determination.
(2) A valid request for vested rights determination may must be made during the time an
application for development order or permit is pending or at any time within 90 days of the
act which is claimed to violate the vested rights claimed. Where an application for
development order or permit on the property is pending, the vested rights hearing shall be
held prior to final action on the development order or permit application, action upon which
shall be stayed until a final determination on vested rights is made. The same application,
once ruled upon by virtue of the procedure set forth herein shall not be heard unless the
director finds a substantial change in circumstances.
(3) Upon a determination by the director of planning (director) that the application
satisfies the requirements for this section, the director shall set the request for a vested
rights determination for hearing before a hearing officer within 45 days of said request. The
director shall have the authority to request any and all documents which the applicant for
vested rights determination believes supports the claim to vested rights and all such
information shall be provided to the director of planning within ten days of said request
unless the time is specifically extended by the director of planning for good cause shown.
(4) The city shall make available for inspection and copying all records which it has in its
custody which relate to the proposed vested rights determination.
(5) Notice of the time, date and location of the hearing shall be mailed to the applicant at
least seven business days prior to the hearing.
(6) The city shall, at least five business days prior to the holding of the vested rights
hearing, advertise notice of said hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the
county; said advertisement shall include the location of the property which is to be the
subject of the vested rights determination and the vested rights being claimed.
2
(7) The hearing officer shall consider the claim for vested rights at a hearing scheduled for
same; said hearing shall be a quasi-judicial hearing. All witnesses shall be sworn. The
applicant shall have the burden of proving the existence of said vested rights and shall
proceed with its presentation. The city shall have the opportunity to respond to said
presentation. All witnesses produced by either side may be cross-examined. The applicant
shall then have the opportunity for rebuttal at the close of the city's presentation. The
hearing officer may ask questions at any time of any witness and may provide for additional
rebuttal by either party if in his/her determination it would serve the ends of justice. Any
evidence which a reasonably prudent person would rely upon in the conduct of their
ordinary affairs shall be admissible based upon a determination by the hearing officer that
same is relevant and authentic. The hearing officer shall render a written decision within 45
days of the hearing.
(c) Standards for vested rights and burden of proof. It shall be the burden of the applicant to
demonstrate, based upon the evidence presented, that under Florida law, the applicant has vested
development rights and the nature and extent of such vested rights.
(d) Obligation of owner. Any owner of property who claims vested rights shall be obligated to
employ the procedure set forth herein if he/she has notice of, and reason to believe that city
action may directly jeopardize those rights. Upon timely application for a vested rights
determination as set forth herein, the city shall abate any action or proposed action jeopardizing
any official action adopted shall not be applied to the subject property until the hearing officer
has ruled on the vested rights claim;the claim vested right until the hearing officer makes his/her
determination on vested rights, this stay of action the shall include shall also be applicable to
any action on a development order, or permit application, or other application relating to the use
of the subject property by the owner or its agents, in order to maintain the status quo for both
the City and the applicant during the vested rights determination process.
(e) Fees. An application fee of $100.00 shall be paid at the time an application for vested rights
determination is made.
(f) Hearing officer. The city commission shall by resolution appoint at least two hearing
officers. One hearing officer shall serve a three-year term and all others a four-year term. A
hearing officer shall be: (1) a retired judge who has served in either the circuit court or a higher
Florida court or as a federal district judge or circuit federal judge, or (2) a retired hearing officer
of the State of Florida; or (3) a practicing member to the Florida Bar for at least five years, with
experience in the field of land use. a hearing officer who shall be a member of the Florida Bar for
at least 10 years, A hearing officer shall not reside or own property within or otherwise be
employed by the city (accept that he/she may serve as a special master or hearing officer on other
matters). The hearing officer shall be assigned to particular applications on a rotating basis. The
director of planning shall notify each hearing officer of each such rotating assignment.
(g) Appeal. Any determination by the hearing officer shall be appealable to the circuit court by
writ of certiorari, without limiting any of the other remedies provided by law or equity.
3
SECTION 3. It is the intention of the City Commission and it is hereby ordained that the
provisions of this ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Land Development Code of
the City of Deerfield Beach, and that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered to
accomplish such intent.
SECTION 4. Should any section or provision of this ordinance or any portion thereof,
any paragraph, sentence or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remainder hereof as a whole or part thereof other
than the part declared to be invalid.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
passage and adoption.
PASSED 1ST READING ON THIS _____ DAY OF ____________________, 2012
PASSED 2ND READING ON THIS _____ DAY OF ____________________, 2012
____________________________________
PEGGY NOLAND, MAYOR
ATTEST:
__________________________________________
ADA GRAHAM-JOHNSON, CMC, CITY CLERK
Deerfield/Ordinances/ Indoor Recreation Amend98-55 98-56
4

02/07/2013 Planning and Zoning Board

Transcription

Similar documents

141 HIsTES Of I(i~CLjLA,(tlEtTl hG `a CITY YLt.55114G ,uji) au~aSC

MLK - Landcroc

Air Rights Parcel 15 - bostonredevelopmentauthority.org

Creekside at Berkeley Hills

Berewick

BROCHURE-ACQUALINA MIAMI

On Range Road 25, Innisfail T4G 1T8

Board of Zoning Appeals Variance Application BEGINNING JULY 1

Mrs. House and Mrs. Huba`s STEM Challenge Day

Palm Beach - Blue Ocean Apartment