Loading...
Minutes 02-26-02MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. Present Steve Myott, Vice Chair William Cwynar Robert Ensler Mike Fitzpatrick Woodrow Hay Maurice Rosenstock Edward Currier, Alternate David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director Lusia Galav, Principal Planner Eric Johnson, Planner Absent Mike Friedland, Alternate 1. Pledge of Allegiance Vice Chair Myott acted as Chairman for this meeting in place of the former Chairman, Lee Wische, who resigned. Acting Chair Myott called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board Acting Chair Myott introduced the Board members, the Assistant City Attorney, and the Planning Division staff. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Ensler seconded the motion that carried unanimously. 4. Minutes Approval - January 22, 2002 Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the minutes of January 22, 2002 as written. Mr. Ensler seconded the motion that carried unanimously. Acting Chair Myott recalled that Mr. Wische had been Chairman of the Planning & Development Board for a long time. Prior to that he had been a Vice Mayor and held many other elected and appointed positions in the City and community. The experience and knowledge that he shared with the Planning & Development Board was an 'nspiration. His leadership skill was evidenced by the way in which he ran the meetings. He thanked Mr. Wische for teaching him how to work on a Board and spoke of Mr. Wische's tireless dedication to the City and the public good. Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 26~ 2002 Mike Fitzpatrick praised him as the hardest worker for political causes in the City. He found him to be a man of integrity and someone who put the City first. He did not always agree with him but noted that he had left his mark on the City and on this Board and would be very hard to replace. Woodrow Hay had known Lee Wische for a long time and they were good friends. He had been instrumental in getting Mr. Hay on the Board and had tried to get him to run for the City Commission. He said he would miss him but knew he would still be around. Bob Ensler stated that he had known Lee Wische and his wife, Pearl, for many years and that there weren't two nicer people in the City. Whenever discussions are held about people who contribute to the City, Lee Wische's name always comes up, and that of his wife as well. He believes that Mr. Wische is a man of high integrity and was very sorry that he had resigned, and hoped he would change his mind. Maurice Rosenstock said that Lee Wische had always been an activist in the community and that in addition to holding elective office, had been absolutely steadfast in his commitment to the Planning & Development Board, feeling that this Board had the greatest influence on how things were developed in the City. Not everyone agreed with Mr. Wische, but he thought Mr. Wische would continue to influence the affairs of the City because of his deep interest in and commitment to its welfare. He regretted that such a knowledgeable, intelligent individual was lost to the Board and felt that he would be hard to replace. He knew the Ordinances and Codes of the City extremely well and had been a major asset to the Board. He spoke of his abiding respect for Mr. Wische and declared that he would miss him very much. Eddie Currier stated that he had known Lee Wische and his wife for fifteen years. He thought he was the most astute person in the City, and possibly the most astute person that had ever worked for the City. He can be replaced, but will not be duplicated. Mr. Currier felt, like others, that "we haven't heard the last of Lee Wische." Bill Cwynar stated that he had been active in the politics of the City since 1977 and recalled Mr. Wische explaining what he needed to do to run for the City Commission again. He learned a lot from him and believed that he was probably going to hit the campaign trail before long and that he would be a continuing presence in the City. David Tolces commented that when he came to this Board the previous August, Mr. Wische had made him feel right at home. He praised Mr. Wische for his leadership skills and the respect with which he treated all people, those who appeared before him and those who served with him on the Board. 5. Communications and Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report Final disposition of the January 22, 2002 Planning and Development Special Board meeting agenda items. 2 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 26, 2002 Michael Rumpf, Planning and ZOning Director, reported on the following action taken by the City Commission at its February 5, 2002 meeting: The Corina Collins Center and Golden Corral Restaurant site plans were approved. The Villas of Quantum Lakes major site plan modification was approved with the removal of the recreation impact fee and comments to be determined at a later date. The Krispy Kreme Ordinances, including the Land Use Plan Amendment and Rezoning, were both approved on second reading. Michael Rumpf reported on the following actions taken by the City Commission at its February 19 meeting: The Code Review item that would change the building height measurement methodology as well as add "places of assembly" to the list of uSes eligible for height exception, was approved and will move on to Ordinances. 6. Old Business None 7. New Business PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use/Site Plan Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: DesCription: Height Exception Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Woolbright Plaza H. P. Tompkins Veronica Motiram 1609 So. Congress Avenue Request Conditional Use/Site Plan approval to raze an existing bank building in Order to construct a new, 14,490 square foot Walgreens store with a drive-through facility, combined with 4,800 square feet of commercial space and a separate four- story, 40,000 square foot, office/retail building, for a total of 59,290 square feet of building area on 4.945 acres. Project to be done in phases. Woolbright Plaza H. P. Tompkins Veronica Motiram 1609 S. Congress Avenue Request a height exception pursuant to the City's Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.F.2, to allow a 3 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 26, 2002 peaked roof on a proposed office/retail building at 61 feet-6 inches; a distance of 16 feet-6 inches above the 45-foot maximum height allowed the in C-3 zoning district. After discussion, the Board decided to discuss and take evidence on both ~ssues simultaneously but vote on them separately. Assistant City Attorney David Tolces administered the Oath to all persons who would be testifying. Eric Johnson, Planner, explained that this was a conditional use/site plan approval to demolish an existing bank building and to construct two buildings, a one-story building and a four-story building, on the same parcel. The four-story office building will be completed in Phase I. The Walgreens portion of the one-story building will be completed during Phase II and the remaining portion of that building will be built during Phase II1. The first floor of the four-story office building will be commercial/retail uses; the remaining floors, two through four, will be for office purposes only. The one-story building will be a total of 19,290 square feet and will encompass the Walgreens Drug Store and 4,800 square feet of commercial/retail area. All uses are permitted uses in the C-3 zoning district. The conditional use is required for the Walgreens Drug Store drive- through feature proposed at the rear (south) of the one-story building. There are 41 Conditions of Approval. The applicant agreed to meet the 41 Conditions of Approval. The approval of the conditional use/site plan will be contingent upon the approval of a variance, to be submitted at a later date, for the omission of a six-foot CBS wall on the western property boundary. Due to a ductile iron pipe (DIP) water line running through a utility easement on the west side, the Utilities Division will not allow the erection of a wall. They do allow some types of shallow-rooted plant material. Staff has not received a formal variance request nor have they comprehensively reviewed for a variance on the wall. There may be some basis for the variance considering the presence of the DIP water line and the distance between the subject property and the residences to the west. Mr. Johnson then addressed the height exception for the project, saying that the roofline of the four-story building is 45 feet in height, which is allowed in a C-3 zoning district. The parapet, which is eligible for the height exception, rises above those 45 feet by five feet for a total of 50 feet. According to Florida Building Code, an elevator is required for any commercial building that is three or more stories tall. The top of the elevator shaft will be a total of 61 feet, 6 inches. There are no conditions attached to the height exception. Acting Chair Myott asked the applicant's representative if the applicant agreed with all the Conditions of Approval and he agreed that they did but that he wanted to clarify some things pertaining to Mr. Johnson's presentation. Press Tompkins, representing Woolbright Plaza, stated that the main part of the building was 45 feet, which was within the Code. They have a mansard or parapet-type roof above that to hide all the mechanical equipment. This is also a Code requirement. 4 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 26, 2002 The main "tower" is nothing more than an elevator shaft that houses elevator equipment, which was a Code requirement from the Building Division. They worked diligently with staff to bring the project within the Code requirements and still maintain the Mediterranean-style that they wished to present. In conjunction with that, they had integrated the architecture of the four-stow building with the architecture of the Walgreen's building, The Walgreen's architect cooperated by installing the same round columns on Walgreens as on the four-stow building. Walgreens also agreed to incorporate the arches on the four-stow building on their one-stow building, A covered walkway connects the two buildings. He mentioned that the site had more than one parcel that had been platted at one time and had two four-stow buildings 45-foot high or higher. The existing property has no wall in the rear. From the property line to the nearest apartment buildin9 across the lake is six hundred feet. They had numerous meetings with Mr. Kelley regarding the variance for the wall. They tried to modify the landscaping and cluster the trees and bushes to get the effect that staff wanted, in lieu of the wall. They tried to keep some open spaces so the lake could be viewed, but believed that a 600-foot separation was more than enough, The applicant wished staff to bring this issue to the Board to see whether a formal variance would be required or whether something could be done within the approval process at this meeting. ACTING CHAIR MYOTT OPENED THE PUBLIC AUDIENCE. Herb Suss, 1711 Wood Fern Drive, Boynton Beach, stated that he lives in Quail Run, the development to the rear of this property, and that he was representing himself and some of the other people at Quail Run. Mr. Suss said that he was not against the project in general but had several concerns. His concerns were whether the site was zoned to have a drive-through window, whether Walgreens would beopen 24 hours, and whether a traffic study was done at the site. He also expressed concerns about noise and emissions pollution, a reduction in the amount of available light, and hazardous waste from the dumpsters. They wished to know the details of site access and were especially concerned that the increase in traffic would exacerbate their already difficult problem with cars making u-turns into their development from Woolbright. They preferred to eliminate the u-turn on Woolbright or have a traffic light installed at the entrance to Quail Run. They thought that a tree buffer between the properties would be more aesthetically pleasing than a CBS wall. Mr. Suss expressed his own personal concern about the height exception, believing that the approval could set an undesirable precedent for future development along Congress Avenue. All of the residents that Mr. Suss had spoken to feared the traffic congestion and attendant problems that would come from this project both now and when the retail/commercial had been fully rented out. At the conclusion of his remarks, Mr. Suss praised Lee Wische for his unstinting service to the City. Mr. Tolces administered the Oath to the following speaker. Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 26, 2002 Patrick Pucci, president of the Quail Run Villas Homeowners Association, mentioned that he had spoken to a number of the residents whose concerns centered on traffic and ingress to the site. It appeared that the only entrance would be from Congress, meaning that anybody who comes north and wants to get into the subject property would have to make a u-turn on Congress or make a left on Woolbdght and make a u-turn in front of the entrance to their community, where they had been having a problem. He mentioned that the area was getting more and more truck traffic from people trying to bypass 1-95 construction tie-ups. The people who live on the side of the lake facing the property were concerned whether there would be bright lighting from the development. They also wondered whether the vegetation would sufficiently screen the buildings. As far as the office building was concerned, they did not believe that a four- story building was necessary. They also hoped that the lake would be protected from construction materials and garbage. Mr. Tolces administered the Oath to the following speaker. Vince Carpentier, 1933 Wood Fern Drive, BOynton Beach, is the former president of the Master Association for the Quail Run area and expressed concern that the increase in traffic would intensify the problem of people making u-turns from Woolbright into their community. He was concerned about the height of the building for the elevator shaft. He had been a general contractor for most of his life and did not believe that the height was necessary, favoring a three-story building instead. Also, he mentioned that between Quail Run and Congress Avenue there was an access road to the site. He wanted to know if this road would be kept open to the public. Acting Chair Myott asked staff to address some of the concerns expressed in the Public Audience. Mr. Johnson requested the applicant to respond first. Mr. Tompkins pointed out the areas planned for ingress/egress to the site on a map projected on the wall. He referred to the access road mentioned by Mr. Carpentier, saying that the old plat had required cross-access between all parcels on the site and that this road would remain open to the public. Mr. Tompkins referred to the concern about waste, stating that Walgreens had a compactor and that they would only have dry paper waste. A company specializing in the disposal of that product would collect any potential biohazardous waste on request and it would not be stored in the dumpsters. Mr. Johnson clarified that although the Palm Beach County Traffic Division approved the traffic study for Traffic Concurrency, the traffic study is off by 1,540 square feet and that this explains the condition stating that the Traffic Study has to be completed and submitted to the Planning Division before the City Commission meeting. Mr. Tompkins addressed the issue of landscaping on the western property line. He explained that the former developers had chosen to put the water lines on the perimeter of the property. A compromise worked out with the City was the use of the Areca Palm, which has dense foliage and would give the maximum screening to the residents to the Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 26, 2002 west of the property. Over 600 feet of separation exists across the lake to the first residential building in Quail RUn. Also, the planned buildings were further away from the residential development than the existing ones. Mr. Johnson noted that a condition of approval requires that the spacing of the trees be changed from 1 to 30 feet to 1 to 20 feet. Mr. Tompkins addresSed the necessity of the elevator tower. He stated that the architect in his office had explained that the height was needed to house all the equipment required to meet the Code requirements. If anyone wished to suggest an alternative, he would be open to it. Mr. Ensler advised that he had contacted an elevator company and learned that there are two types of elevators: traction and hydraulic. A traction type is where the equipment is put at the top of the elevator as in this case. The other type was hydraulic and the equipment is all put on the first floor. If the applicant changed the plans to have a hydraulic elevator, the extra elevation would not be needed. It would also be a cost savings to the project since manual elevators are less expensive than traction ones. The traction elevators are much faster than the hydraulic ones but the elevator company felt the use of one in a four-story building would be "over kill." Mr. Currier stated that hydraulic elevators were used long before the traction type and that they were extremely slow. Acting Chair Myott asked for clarification on the roof measurement and was told that the request was actually eleven feet over the parapet. He thought that some variation in the elevation of the building would be attractive. Also, it appeared to him that the elevator machine room was located on the first floor, which indicated to him that the plan actually called for a hydraulic elevator already. Mr. Tompkins apologized, saying that he was a civil engineer and not an architect and that he did not have that knowledge to present to the Board. The Board discussed the next step. Mr. Tompkins suggested considering the site plan request and tabling the height exception. Mr. Tolces stated that the issue of the variance had been brought up but it was not before the Board. He preferred that the Board defer discussion of the variance for the wall until application had been made and proper notice given so it could be properly considered. The height exception was properly before the Board at this meeting. Acting Chair Myott noted the comment in the Conditions of Approval that would reduce the height of the poles and that there would be no light emanating from the property and staff and applicant agreed. The Board discussed the hours of operation for Walgreens. Mr. Tompkins stated that Walgreens planned to be open for normal retail hours, closing at 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., but wanted to retain the right to have a 24-hour operation. He did not know if this store would be open for 24-hours or not. There is already a 24-hour Walgreens in close proximity to the proposed facility. Mr. Ensler believed that vehicles coming to a 24-hour store would shine their headlights into Quail Run. Mr. Tompkins stated that the areas that Would allow that to happen have "bunched-up" landscaping that should eliminate this problem. 7 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 26, 2002 Mr. Tompkins stated that during any normal construction operation adjacent to water management systems, the South Florida Water Management District requires the developer to put up silt or turbidial barriers and this would be no exception. Contractors face significant fines for polluting or getting silt into lake or canal systems. Acting Chair Myott thought that the drainage would not go to the lake but would be handled on site. Mr. Tompkins asserted that they had filtration trenches to handle water on site, but the subject property was platted to give water retention rights to part of the lake. Acting Chair Myott asked if the lake functioned that way? Mr. Tompkins said that it did and that an inch and a half of water was retained on site in the filtration trenches and was then allowed to be metered out into the lake system. Mr. Ensler asked whether Walgreens would sell liquor. There was a misunderstanding about this and it was eventually clarified that this store did not plan to sell hard liquor, but would sell beer and wine and alcoholic beverages other than hard liquor, and that this was permitted in C-3 Zoning Districts. This met with a divided response on the Board, with some members desiring a commitment that Walgreens would not permit any type of alcoholic beverage at all to be sold and others desiring that all types of alcoholic beverages be made available. Rob Levy, Walgreens developer, came to the podium and stated that Walgreens was closing its liquor stores nationwide and that the new stores being built do not have liquor stores attached to them. Mr. Ensler favored putting the wall far enough back that it did not interfere with the underground utility pipes, even if it encroached on the parking lot area. Mr. Tompkins stated that the water main easement was sixteen feet wide and that they could not put any landscape in the Water Management tract itself. The location of the water main on the western side does not allow room for very much planting. Mr. Rosenstock asked Mr. Rumpf if the sixteen-foot rule applied today. Mr. Rumpf could not answer that because it depended upon various other factors and would require further study. Mr. P, osenstock asked whether, if the City required less than sixteen feet, the applicant would be willing to put in the wall. Mr. Tompkins said that the physical location of the water main was not in the center of the sixteen-foot piece but closer to their property line. Even if the amount of the easement were to be decreased, it would not solve the problem because the water main is only five feet off their property line. Mr. Rosenstock reiterated Mr. Ensler's comment about allowing space on his property for what would normally be an easement for a wall. Acting Chair Myott thought it might be more attractive to look at the landscape buffer from Quail Run than to look at the wall. Some other Board members agreed, echoing the same sentiment that some of the residents had expressed. Mr. Ensler read from a list of questions he had sent to Mr, Rumpf prior to the meeting: 1) There are two four-story office buildings to the south of the proposed building. a) What is the height of these buildings, including everything? (Staff.'"The existing buildings were approved at 44'8.'7 Is there anything sticking up in the center of the buildings? (Staff: "Yes, there is a tower for screening of utilities on top of the roof." Acting Chair Myott thought it had a chilled water air-conditioning system). Mr. Ensler stated that it sounded like there was no elevator tower in the two existing buildings. (Staff: "This could not be discerned from the plans.'~ Mr. Ensler's point was that the 8 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 26, 2002 existing buildings had been made without the need for towers and that he did not see why the current project could not do the same. b) Were any variances for height approved for these buildings? (Staff.: "Variances were not necessary due to their height.") c) Were any variances for hei§ht denied for these buildings? (Staff: "Same answer. d) Were any variances for height denied in the last few years for an office building: If so, what were the conditions? (Staff: "We recall only one, a medical building on Woolbright that had to do with parking.") 2) The analysis compares the new office building with newly approved buildings. How does the new office building fit in aesthetically with the two current, older four-story buildings? (Staff: "The existing buildings were done in the early 1980s and were plain, and modem for their time, in architecture. They did not review the project against those buildings since they did not see features in the older buildings that would exceed the features shown in the current project. The Code requires that existing or established architecture or trends in a two-block area be repeated unless undesirable or of Iow quality. 3) What does staff think about the number and close proximity of pharmacies on Congress Avenue and would having more represent a healthy situation for the future development of the Congress Avenue Corridor? (Staff: "This use was not reviewed. It is an accepted and permitted use in this Zoning District. It would be difficult for staff, in the absence of some Code requirement or reason, to object to the very typical type of use that is being proposed.") 4) One of the conditions was to have an architectural plan with the colors of the buildings. He asked to see this. Acting Chair Myott stated that the Walgreens rendering was of minimally acceptable quality and that the rendering of the office building was inadequate, since it was very vague on the colors and materials. The Board wished to see glass and aluminum samples of precast details and color chips of the actual colors. Acting Chair Myott inserted a comment that he would like the applicant to place some foundation landscaping on the north and east sides of the Walgreens store. There was too much stucco wall. Acting Chair Myott asked the Board to focus on the height exception item, get all their concerns expressed, and move on to a motion. Mr. Ensler stated that he was still asking a question about color and that he could not tell from the drawings what the colors would be. He further stated that Mr. Rumpf was well aware of the Board's need for this type of thing so it could properly assess the appearance issues for proposed developments. Mr. Tompkins noted that they had provided paint samples on the Walgreens board and they had duplicated the same colors and that the paint chips and tile sample were on the board. Mr. Ensler did not know what paint went where in looking at the board. Mr. Rosenstock thought the "grass green,' plastic awnings Would be unattractive. The Board stated that they did not have color packets. Mr. Tompkins stated that the color packets were on the board that was given to the City and he advised the Board of the building colors. Mr. Ensler liked the 9 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 26, 2002 proposed colors but asked that the Planning Division provide better visuals, especially when the applicant brings them to the City prior to the meeting. Mr. Rumpf thought that it was best to use actual color chips whenever possible instead of computer-aided renderings which were not often accurate. Mr. Fitzpatrick was in favor of any building height if there would be a tradeoff for open space, preferably for native plantings, but that this project was two-thirds asphalt and concrete and appeared to be overbuilt. He was not in favor of the height exception. Mr. Hay inquired about the signs. Mr. Tompkins stated that there were two monument signs, one for Walgreens and one for the four-story building and he showed their locations on a drawing. Mr. Hay inquired whether the signs would be the same color and style and Mr. Tompkins replied that they would. Acting Chair Myott asked if the LED feature had been eliminated per the Conditions of Approval and Mr. Tompkins replied that it had. Mr. Rosenstock stated that he lives on Congress Avenue and that the City had declared a moratorium on zoning on certain parts of Congress Avenue because there is a group of people, of which he is a member, who have petitioned the City to keep Congress Avenue more residential. He was not against Walgreens and thought it would be convenient for the people in the neighborhood. He was deeply concerned about the traffic patterns that exist on Congress Avenue now, in spite of any traffic study approval. The traffic conditions he sees every day on Congress are bad and getting worse as more and more vehicles exit 1-95 to avoid the constant tie-ups there due to ongoing construction. He felt that if this project were to be approved, it would contribute to the existing traffic congestion. Mr. Rosenstock was also concerned about the residential nature of the homes on or adjacent to Congress Avenue and the fact that the Board was being asked to approve structures that were almost two stories above the current height requirements. He also believed that headlights of vehicles would be seen across the lake by the residents, regardless of any amount of landscaping that could be put there. He agreed that landscaping was prettier than a wall but that a landscaped wall would be even better. His primary objection was granting an exception of sixteen feet to the height of the building because he did not know where that kind of decision would lead in the future. Would a church come in and build a hundred-foot steeple? The rule in the City is 45 feet and more and more people are coming in to break that rule. He thought that if the applicant put in hydraulic elevators, the height exception would not be necessary. Acting Chair Myott suggested a vote on the height exception first. Mr. Ensler asked for an opportunity to summarize his comments but when offered a very brief period in which to do so, declined. Mr. Rumpf encouraged the Board to approve or deny the height exception as they wished but if they could not approve it, he asked that they declare a height that would be acceptable. The City did not want to totally discourage height exceptions because their purpose was to motivate and encourage architectural elements that prevent a "box-like 10 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 26, 2002 appearance." Mr. Tompkins stated that if the Board wished them to lower the building height, they would be happy to consider a compromise. Mr. Rosenstock noted that the Planning Division had come to the Board asking for an exception for church steeples and it was now in the Code. His position as a Board member was that if the applicant went over 45 feet, he would not support it. He was not going to tell the applicant how to design his building. Mr. Ensler stated that they did not want to see Manhattan or Chicago skylines. Acting Chair Myott called for a motion on the height exception. Motion Mr. Currier moved to allow the height exception pursuant to the City's Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Zoning, Section 4.F.2, to allow a peaked roof on a proposed office/retail building at 61 feet-6 inches; a distance of 16 feet-6 inches above the 45-foot maximum height allowed in the C-3 zoning district. Mr. Cwynar seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary polled a roll call vote, which resulted in the motion passing 4-3, Messrs. Ensler, Fitzpatrick, and Rosenstock dissenting. Acting Chair Myott called for a motion on the conditional use/site plan. Motion Mr. Currier moved to grant conditional use/site plan approval to raze an existing bank building in order to construct a new 14,490 square foot Walgreens store with a drive- through facility combined with 4,800 square feet of commercial space and a separate four-story 40,000 square foot office/retail building for a total of 59,290 square feet of building area on 4.945 acres. Project to be done in three phases. This approval is subject to the applicant meeting all 41 Conditions of Approval in the Staff Report. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Ensler asked that two amendments be made to this motion: 1) that no alcoholic beverages be sold in the store, and 2) that if Walgreens puts in a 24-hour operation, that a wall be built on the western side of the property so the headlights do not flash across the lake at night. Acting Chair Myott said the wall was not being addressed yet because a variance had not come before the Board. This is an open condition that is in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Tolces asked whether the wall was part of the site plan submittal and Mr. Johnson told him that it was not. Mr. Tolces agreed that the Board could specify such a limitation if they came to a consensus on it. Acting Chair Myott proposed a vote on the two amendments. Mr. Tolces stated that Mr. Currier had to be asked if he would agree to include the amendments suggested by Mr. Ensler. Mr. Currier agreed to the wall amendment but not to the prohibition on the sale of hard liquor in Walgreens. Mr. Tolces asked Mr. Hay, who had seconded the motion, whether he agreed with the amendments, and he did agree to both amendments. 11 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 26, 2002 Mr. Currier clarified that the wall requirement would be for a wall only large enough to protect the residences across the lake from car headlights going through the drive- through only. Mr. Tolces asked Mr. Hay if he accepted that amendment. Mr. Hay asked why this could not be done with shrubbery and Mr. Currier said that there was some thought that the shrubbery would not be sufficient protection against the headlights at night. Mr. Tompkins clarified that the drive-through does not face the residences - it faces Congress and the headlights would be facing Congress and not west across the lake. The possibility of someone coming in from the side access and making a u-turn does exist, but it would not be common. Acting Chair Myott stated that it was six hundred feet across the lake to the nearest house and that he was neutral on the wall amendment. He thought it would be difficult to build it. Acting Chair Myott suggested a vote on the alcoholic beverage amendment. Mr. Tolces stated there was a motion to approve, seconded by Mr. Hay, on the floor at this time. The only amendments to it were the 41 Conditions of Approval in the Staff Report. Mr. Ensler asked if that passed if they could vote for changes to that with limitations. Mr. Tolces said that the limitations needed to be made part of the motion. At a subsequent meeting a motion to reconsider could be made. Mr. Rosenstock suggested tabling the main motion to determine the Board's consensus on the two amendments to Mr. Currier's motion, and then return to that motion. Motion Mr. Ensler moved to table the original motion by Mr. Currier for five minutes while the Board discussed the two amendments. Mr. Rosenstock seconded the motion that passed 6-1. Acting Chair Myott asked the Board to consider the amendment to Mr. Currier's motion that would prohibit the sale of hard liquor at Walgreens. Motion Mr. Curder moved to allow the sale of hard liquor, along with beer and wine and any other alcoholic beverages, at the proposed Walgreens, subject to the City's Code of Ordinances. Mr. Cwynar seconded the motion that passed 4-3, Messrs. Ensler, Rosenstock, and Myott dissenting. Acting Chair Myott stated that them would be no amendment to Mr. Currier's motion that would prohibit the sale of hard liquor or any other alcoholic beverages at Walgreens. Acting Manager Myott asked for a motion on the wall amendment. After discussion with Mr. Tolces, the Board determined that action would not be necessary unless the applicant came back before the Board with a variance. As it stands, the wall is required under the Code. 12 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida February 26, 2002 Mr. Tolces advised the Board that the tabling of Mr. Currier's original motion had expired and that they should now proceed to consider that motion. The original motion was made by Mr. Currier and seconded by Mr. Hay. It was to approve the conditional use/site plan for Woolbright Plaza as presented, subject to the 41 Conditions of Approval. The motion carried 6-1, Mr. Rosenstock dissenting. Mr. Ensler wished to reconsider his vote. Acting Chair Myott recognized Mr. Ensler for one minute to explain his reasons for wanting to reconsider his vote. Mr. Ensler wished to make certain that this motion had nothing to do with the height exception. Acting Chair Myott assured him that the vote for the height exception was a separate item and had already been approved. Mr. Ensler wished to allow his vote to stand. 7, Other Acting Chair Myott wished to discuss the vacancy on the board. Mr. Tolces said the Board was required to appoint a new chairman at its meeting in April and suggested that Vice Chair Myott act as Chairman during the interim, which he agreed to do. Mr. Tolces said he would put an item on the agenda for the following month to appoint a Vice Chair. 8. Adjournment The meeting was duly adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Susan Collins Recording Secretary (two tapes) (02/27/02) 13