Agenda 06-09-05
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Thursday June 9th, 2005
Commission Chambers
Boynton Beach 6:30 P.M.
I. Call to Order.
II. Roll Call.
III. Agenda Approval.
A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda.
B. Adoption of Agenda.
IV. Consent Agenda. - 8419
A. Approval of Minutes, May 10th, 2005 Workshop Meeting, the May 10th, 2005
Meeting and the May 24th, 2005 Special Meeting. - 8420
B. Financial Report. - 8446
C. Consideration to Purchase Sims Property, Located at 909 N. Seacrest
Boulevard. - 8447
V. Public Audience. - 8452
VI. Public Hearing. - 8453
8413
Any persoll who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a
disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by
the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or
activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request.
Annette Shares L\CRA Agenda\CRA Agendas 2005\CRA Agenda June 9, 2005.doc
Old Business
A. Code Review
1. PROJECT:
Building Colors along Major Roadways
(CDRV 05-009). POSTPONED FROM MAY
10. 2005 MEETING. - 8454
AGENT:
City initiated
LOCA TION:
N/A
DESCRIPTION:
Proposal to amend the Land Development
Regulations, Chapters, 4 and 9 to limit building
colors, and require the review/approval for
changes to building colors for buildings located
along Boynton Beach Boulevard, Federal
Highway, and Congress Avenue.
New Business
A. Abandonment
1. PROJECT:
415 SE 5th Avenue (ABAN 05-002) - 8455
AGENT:
Jeanne Heavilin, Salefish Realty, Inc.
OWNER:
James E. Ploen
LOCATION:
415 SE 5th Avenue
DESCRIPTION:
Request Abandonment of a portion of Railroad
Avenue, approximatel~ 30 feet by 77 feet,
immediately north of 5t Avenue South, west of
Lot 11, Block B of Pence Subdivision and East
of the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way.
8414
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individua] with a
disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by
the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or
activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request.
Annette Shares L\CRA Agenda\CRA Agendas 2005\CRA Agenda June 9, 2005.doc
B. Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoninq
1. PROJECT:
Peninsula at Boynton Beach (LUAR 05-004) - 8456
AGENT:
Kim Glas-Castro, Bonnie Miskel, Ruden
McClosky
OWNER:
Jennie A. Smith
LOCATION:
East side of US 1, approximately 1,600 feet
north of Gateway Boulevard (2649 North
Federal Highway).
DESCRIPTION:
Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map from Local Retail
Commercial and High Density Residential to
Special High Density Residential; and
Request to rezone from C-3 Community
Commercial District and R-3 Multiple family
Dwelling District to IPUD Infill Planned United
Development.
Proposed Use:
30 town homes and 40 condominium units.
C. New Site Plan
1. PROJECT:
Peninsula at Boynton Beach (NWSP 05-013) - 8457
AGENT:
Kim Glas-Castro, Bonnie Miskel, Ruden
McClosky
OWNER:
Jennie Smith
LOCATION:
East side of US 1, approximately 1,600 feet
north of Gateway Boulevard (2649 North
Federal Highway)
8415
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a
disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by
the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or
activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request.
Annette Shares L\CRA Agenda\CRA Agendas 2005\CRA Agenda June 9, 2005.doc
DESCRIPTION:
Request for New Site Plan approval to
construct 30 townhomes and 40 condominium
units on a 3.51-acre parcel.
D. Code Review
1. PROJECT:
Commercial Uses in Planned Unit Development
District (PUD) (CDRV 05-011) - 8458
AGENT:
Staff-initiated
LOCATION:
Planned Unit Development District (PUD)
DESCRIPTION:
Request to amend the Land Development
Regulations, Chapter 2.5. Planned Unit
Development, Section 9.D. Commercial
Standards, to allow commercial uses to front
on exterior or perimeter streets, when such
locations are consistent with adopted
redevelopment plans.
VII. Pulled Consent Agenda Items. - 8459
VIII. Old Business. - 8460
IX. New Business. - 8461
X. Commission Action. - 8462
XI. Director's Report. - 8463
XII. Board Member Comments. - 8471
XIII. Legal. - 8472
XIV. Other Items. - 8473
XV. Future Agenda Items. -8474
A. Consideration of the RFP for the Retail Demand Analysis (July).
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based. 8416
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a
disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by
the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or
activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request.
Annette Shares L\CRA Agenda\CRA Agendas 2005\CRA Agenda June 9, 2005.doc
B. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement with the City of Boynton Beach for
the Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension, Promenade and Riverwalk.
(July).
C. Consideration of the Old High School Agreement (July).
D. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement between the CRA and the City for
the MLK Phase I Project (July).
E. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement between the CRA and the City of
Boynton Beach for Events and Festival services (TBD).
F. Consideration of Design Modification for Drainage Improvements on 4th
Street (TBD).
G. Consideration of Workshop Meetings to be held In the CRA Conference
Room 107 on the Following Dates:
1. Thursday. June 30th. 200S at 6:30 p.m. at 639 E. Ocean Ave. Suite
107
· Consideration of 2005-2006 Budget.
2. Thursday. July 21 st, 200S at 6:30 p.m. at 639 E. Ocean Ave. Suite
107
· Consideration of 2005-2006 Budget.
· Consideration of CRA 2030 Plan, Design Guidelines and CRA Land
Develop~ent Regulations (LDR).
· Consideration of Human Resources Policy Recommendations.
3. Thursday. AUQust 18th. 200S at 6:30 p.m. at Holiday Inn - Catalina
on ConQress Avenue
· Consideration of CRA 2030 Plan, Design Guidelines and CRA Land
Development Regulations (LDR).
· Consideration of Feasibility for Attraction Complex.
4. Thursday. September 1Sth. 200S at 6:30 p.m. at 639 E. Ocean Ave,
Suite 107
· Consideration and Review of Parks and Recreations plans for CRA
Parks.
XVI. Future Project Preview. - 847S
XVII. Adjournment. - 8476
Any person who decides to appeaJ any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the
appeal is to be based. 8417
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a
disability an equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by
the CRA. Please contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or
activity in order for the CRA to reasonably accommodate your request.
Annette Shares L\CRA Agenda\CRA Agendas 2005\CRA Agenda June 9, 2005.doc
BOYNTON BEACH COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES1
1. Ex parte disclosures by CRA Board Members.
2. The CRA Attorney outlines the hearing procedure, including a statement that
any member of the Board may, at any time during the presentation of
testimony, question any witnesses.
3. Attorneys or other individuals acting in a representative capacity make their
appearances.
4, Request for identification of any intervenors.2
5. The CRA Attorney or City Clerk swears in all witnesses.
6. City staff members present a summary of the issues before the Board, testify
as to their opinions and make recommendations for inclusion in "Conditions
of Approval." (The CRA generally limits staff presentations to 15 minutes).
7. The Applicant presents its case, including acceptance or objection to
proposed conditions of approval. (The CRA generally limits applicant
presentations to 15 minutes).
8.
Intervenors present their cases,
examine previous witnesses.
presentations to 15 minutes).
offer their facts and opinions, and cross-
(The CRA generally limits intervenors
9. Members of the public offer their facts and/or opinions. (The CRA generally
limits public presentations to 3 minutes).
10. Intervenor rebuttal/final comments. (The CRA generally limits intervenor
rebuttal presentations to 3 minutes).
11. Applicant rebuttal/final comments. (The CRA generally limits applicant
rebuttal presentations to 5 minutes).
12. Staff rebuttal/final comments. (The CRA generally limits staff rebuttal
presentations to 5 minutes).
13. CRA questions and deliberation / decisions.
8418
, The gUidelines represent a generalized procedure for conducting quasI-Judicial heanngs and are sub,ect to modlflcalion on a case-by-
case basIs The controlling pnnclpal IS that all Interested parties have the opportunity to offer testimony, eVidence and conduct cross-
examination of witnesses
2 An Intervenor can be a person or a bUSiness. or even another government entity, who claIms to have a direct and personal interest In the
pending matter and who wants to have the same legal nghts and responsibilities to participate In the public heanng as the actual parties
have For example, an Intervenor may also question the witnesses presented by parties and other Intervenors, and can call Its own
witnesses, who wili be sworn to tell the truth and will be subject to possible cross-examination by the parties and other intervenors The
decIsion whether to grant Intervenor status will be made by the Board
Someone who does not qualify to be an Intervenor. or could qualify but Just does not want to be one. may be allowed to speak bnefly on his
or her own behalf, either to present facts or to state OpiniOnS, but cannot queslion witnesses, present witnesses, and so forth
It should be noted that being an Intervenor In a matter under consideration by the Board does not guarantee that the intervenor can
challenge or appeal the final decision In a Judicial or administrative proceeding Also, being an Intervenor here may not even be a
prerequIsite to filing a challenge or appeal of the final decision depending upon what state laws or court rules reqUlCe
C\Mone!_Nlcole Shares\Legal\QuASI~JUDICIAL PROCEDURES 15 Mln Max 5_05 doc
IV. Consent Agenda
8419
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVLOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP
MEETING, HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL,
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, MAY 10, 2005 AT 5:30 P.M.
Present
Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson
Henderson Tillman, Vice Chair
James Baretta
Alexander DeMarco
Don Fenton
Marie Horenburger
Steve Myott
Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director
Ken Spillias, Board Attorney
I. Call to Order
Chair Heavilin called the workshop meeting to order at 5:30 p.m.
II. Approval of the Agenda
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the agenda. Vice Chair Tillman seconded
the motion that carried unanimously.
III. New Business
A. Consideration of the Urban Commercial Overlay Plan
Presentation - Vivian Brooks, CRA Planner
Ms. Brooks stated at the last meeting, the Planning Staff presented the Urban
Commercial Overlay District, and the Urban Commercial Overlay as presented by
the City. She referred to the displayed maps, and pointed out the yellow dotted
line covering the C-1 through C-4 commercial areas in the City. Ms. Brooks said
that after internal discussions, they decided it would be useful to extend the area
to the Martin Luther King Boulevard corridor, since they hoped to do Mixed Use
along the area in the Martin Luther King Phase 1, and the Seacrest Boulevard
corridor. She pointed out there is a natural connectivity between Boynton Beach
Boulevard, Federal Highway, Martin Luther King Boulevard and Seacrest
Boulevard, and felt that with the trolley coming online, they would see good
usage from that and envisioned it as a trolley route.
8420
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
She explained that if someone wanted to build a commercial building - for
example a pizza place - it would still fit in with the urban fabric, which is the goal
of the City and Planning Staff. Ms. Brooks pOinted out that even though they
want to keep the urban environment created by the Mixed Use projects, those
buildings that do not want to be Mixed Use along those corridors do not have to
be. She also stated that it only affects the location of the building and not the
use.
Ms. Brooks expressed the hope to include the Seacrest Corridor in the Heart of
Boynton between Boynton Beach Boulevard to Martin Luther King Boulevard, and
Martin Luther King Boulevard between Federal Highway and Seacrest Boulevard.
In addition to that, the CRA would amend the Martin Luther King Boulevard front
setbacks to comply with the new overlay setbacks, so they are in line. They
would also like to amend the Martin Luther King Boulevard parking requirements
to the Mixed Use or commercial parking guidelines, because they are 50%
reduced and they felt it would be an impediment to development in the future.
Ms. Brooks stated the City's Planning Staff were in attendance, should there be
any questions regarding their proposal.
Vice Chair Tillman stated he studied the map in the proposal, and although he
was in agreement with most of it, he had concerns about the Commercial
encroachment on the residential area of Seacrest. He expressed that he would
like to see Commercial on Martin Luther King Boulevard, but did not agree with
replacing housing from 6th Avenue to Martin Luther King Boulevard, since there
was a large amount of affordable housing missing from that area.
Ms. Brooks pointed out they were only discussing the overlay that would affect
someone coming into the existing Commercial zoning along Martin Luther King
Boulevard. They would have to bring the building up to the street rather than
having a suburban setback. She said it does not affect the zoning, only the
building usage for the existing Commercial zoning.
Vice Chair Tillman expressed he was not comfortable with a Commercial overlay
in that area. Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that it was already there. Vice Chair
Tillman reiterated he was not comfortable with additional Commercial use in that
area, because it sets the tone for a Commercial development, whereas he would
like to see residential development in that area.
Chair Heavilin was in disagreement with Mr. Tillman and felt that on the west
side of Seacrest; as a buffer between the Commercial developments on the east
8421
2
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
side and the residential development on the west side, that office use would
make a natural transition.
Ms. Horenburger agreed with Vice Chair Tillman's concern about residential
housing, but noted that they were not discussing the zoning because it already
exists. She asked if the parking would be in the rear and Ms. Brooks pointed out
that the building footprint would be pushed up, and the parking would be to the
side or rear of the building.
Mr. Baretta questioned why north of the canal there is a R-l-A zone and a C-2
zone, but the C-2 zone was excluded from the overlay. Mr. Hutchinson stated
the area he was referring to was the funeral home on the other side of the
railroad tracks. Mr. Baretta asked why the C-3 at the southern most end of the
City was not included. Mr. Hutchinson stated it was not adjacent to Mixed Use.
Ms. Horenburger inquired about the purple public usage category on the
southern end of the map, and Mr. Hutchinson stated they were unincorporated
county pockets. Mr. Baretta asked when the pockets come in west of Federal
Highway, if they were within an overlay district. Ms. Horenburger asked if they
could not create the overlay to incorporate the unincorporated county pockets,
and inquired whether they could ask the County if they'd agree to it.
Ed Breese, of the City's Planning & Zoning stated they might be able to do a joint
planning agreement with the County but that would not be done at this point.
Ms. Horenburger inquired whether the C-3 parcel at the southern most end of
the City was the Gulfstream Mall and Mr. Hutchinson clarified it was. She said it
was to her understanding that area would be residential and Mr. Hutchinson
stated it was Mixed Use.
Quintus Greene, Director of Development, asked Ms. Brooks to display the
zoning map for Sea crest Boulevard. He stated that City staff had only one major
objection. They took serious exception to the idea that any kind of urban
commercial district overlay would be placed along the west side of Seacrest,
between Boynton Beach Boulevard and Martin Luther King Boulevard. Mr.
Greene stated the reasons for their objections were as follows:
1. Contrary to popular belief Seacrest is a residential street. The non-
residential uses on Sea crest are concentrated at Woolbright, Boynton
Beach Boulevard; there are some at Martin Luther King Boulevard and
Hypoloxo Boulevard. He reiterated the remainder of that street is
residential.
8422
3
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
2. There is an adopted development plan for the Heart of Boynton, which
designates the entire west side of Sea crest Boulevard for single-family,
residential use. Mr. Greene pOinted out this plan had a lot of community
support, and was almost two years in the making. He did not think it was
fair for them to throw out that plan in the interest of speculative
commercial development.
Mr. Greene agreed that right now the area is zoned for Commercial, however
given the current requirements under C-2 for setbacks and buffering from the
adjacent residential, it would make it difficult to do a commercial development on
that strip. He felt by applying the urban commercial overlay plan and reducing
the setbacks, would be easier for people to do a commercial development, and
the City would be firmly opposed to that.
Ms. Horenburger asked why the City did not make an effort to change the zoning
in that area. Mr. Greene stated the City does not normally initiate zoning
changes; they usually come about as a result of the property owners.
Mr. Hutchinson expressed that staff is working on final adjustments for several
areas that need to be defined, like the difference between the plan, the future
zoning, and the current zoning maps. Mr. Hutchinson also pointed out that when
GIS ran the maps, the line was not in the correct place because the end of the
Gulfstream Mall should be a part of the urban overlay district. Chair Heavilin
referred to Mr. Baretta's earlier question on why the C-3 at the southern most
end of the City was not included, and pointed out that in response to the
question, that area is a part of the overlay district.
Ms. Horenburger asked Mr. Greene to repeat what he said about the west side of
Sea crest Boulevard regarding residential.
Mr. Greene stated it was an adopted development plan, which is part of the
City's Comprehensive Plan that the area should be single-family residential.
However, the zoning has not been changed to correspond to the plan. Ms.
Horenburger questioned why it was part of the comprehensive plan but the
zoning was not initiated, and Mr. Greene pointed out they had not gotten around
to that up to this point.
Mr. Hutchinson reiterated they had several of those issues highlighted to adjust
so they could match. He said the situation had come up several times, and CRA
staff is working with City staff to get those issues right.
Vice Chair Tillman pointed out he took the position he did on the matter because
he knew there was a Heart of Boynton plan that considered the area for
8423
4
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
residential and suggested approving the overlay in lieu of leaving out the
Sea crest quarter.
Chair Heavilin asked Mr. Hutchinson if he just required a consensus of opinion
from the Board
Mr. Hutchinson explained that staff required the Board to look at the Martin
Luther King corridor. They would like to clean the setbacks up in that same
ordinance so they match. Also, match the parking requirement to ULI if it's a
Mixed Use project, or to regular commercial parking, because they have a special
provision that requires you to only park 50% of your parking requirements. Mr.
Hutchinson felt there was no way to take care of the other 50% of parking right
now. He pointed out that it was all going redevelopment, and they were trying
to clean up the situation, so that when projects do come in, they would not have
situations, which they do not want in the area. Mr. Hutchinson stated they could
drop the request for seacrest, but reiterated they would like the matching of the
setbacks and the removing of the provision for 50% parking reduction, applied to
the Martin Luther King corridor.
Mr. Greene said they do not object to that request.
Mr. Baretta said the map he was looking at did not include the seacrest corridor
in the urban commercial district overlay.
Ms. Brooks stated the map lines were drawn from the City staff recommendation,
and to consider those two other areas.
Mr. Greene explained that City staff initially prepared the map. The CRA staff
added seacrest and Martin Luther King Boulevard. City staff has no objection to
adding Martin Luther King Boulevard, but have a fundamental problem with
adding any commercial district overlay on seacrest between Boynton Beach
Boulevard and Martin Luther King Boulevard.
Mr. Hutchinson pointed out there is no commercial zoning on the east side of
seacrest Boulevard in that area and it was eventually going to be Mixed Use.
Therefore, to say there would be no commercial on seacrest was contrary to
their approved plans.
Mr. Fenton clarified the west side of that area is commercial, and Mr. Hutchinson
agreed. Mr. Fenton then asked if the people who own property in that area were
paying on the tax roles for commercial property. Mr. Hutchinson said no, if there
is a single family residential, those people are paying for residential property.
8424
5
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
Mr. Baretta asked if there would be Commercial and Mixed Use across from the
single-family residential on the east side of Seacrest.
Mr. Greene felt it would be premature to visualize one particular form of Mixed
Use at this point. He said City staff was recommending they stick with the
adopted plan. Mr. Baretta asked if the adopted plan showed Mixed Use on both
sides and Mr. Hutchinson said yes.
Chair Heavilin did not think with the traffic on Seacrest and Mixed Use or possible
Commercial on the east side, that single-family residential would be appropriate.
She expressed she could possibly see town homes or multi-family homes in that
area.
Mr. Myott stated if it were multi-family homes or town homes, it would be better
to have the building to the front and the parking and yards in the rear because it
is a heavily traveled street.
Chair Heavilin stated she would like staff to look at some alternative uses for the
west side other than single-family houses.
Ms. Horenburger pointed out that it is already in the City's Comprehensive Land
Use Plan that the area is residential, and the City would have to change the
Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Hutchinson stated they are working on Mixed Use now but what was
presented was just an adjustment to the Commercial districts, since they have
smaller projects right now that will really affect the situation of the projects on
Federal Highway. He felt it was a step in the right direction and pointed out that
they were going with medians on the west side of Seacrest, as part of the street
design. That way, there would be some additional separation in that area, which
would help with the Mixed Use on one side and residential on the other.
Chair Heavilin expressed she would like to see the commercial overlay remain on
the east side of Sea crest.
Ms. Horenburger felt they should eliminate it at this time and revisit it when the
City moves forward with some changes, but while it is in the Comprehensive Plan
they would not want to encourage anyone to develop there before any decisions
are made.
Mr. DeMarco asked if any thoughts were given as far as the height limitation, the
traffic situation, and the parking.
8425
6
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
Mr. Hutchinson said no, the C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 that were affected, had
nothing to do with those things. It just related to where you put the building on
the lot. He said they would address those issues at a later time when they look
at other types of Mixed Use.
Mr. DeMarco said it would be nice to consider churches, nursing homes, private
schools, donut shops and ice-cream parlors for that particular area. But he felt
to have large buildings in that area would cause a situation that would need to
be addressed.
Ms. Horenburger stated with exception of the ice-cream parlor, all those uses Mr.
DeMarco pointed out, were not commercial uses. They were conditional uses in
residential neighborhoods.
Mr. DeMarco felt those were the things that would help the community.
Mr. Baretta noted that until a few months ago he owned property on Seacrest
Boulevard. Reversing from a single-family home on Seacrest is dangerous, and
Mr. Baretta wondered about the safety of having single-family homes in that
location. He noted that on numerous occasions the Board wanted to do
something in conflict with a pre-adopted plan, and felt it was time to re-review
some of those plans.
Mr. Hutchinson said staff had a series of issues to bring to the Board, and they
anticipated that they would change some of their plans.
Ms. Horenburger said what she understood from Mr. Greene's statement was if
they were to include the west side of Seacrest, north of Boynton Beach
Boulevard, in the urban commercial overlay, that it would encourage commercial
development while they are still in flux as to what they require for that area.
Chair Heavilin asked if they would be in favor of including the east side of
Federal Highway within the overlay.
Vice Chair Tillman said no, and Ms. Horenburger expressed they could amend it
later. She felt they should give the City an opportunity to review it and make
some decisions as to whether or not they would leave what they have in the
Comprehensive Plan and make their zoning plan match.
Vice Chair Tillman agreed with Ms. Horenburger and said if they would consider
the ice-cream parlor or churches or the other uses Mr. DeMarco pointed out,
they should look at the entire picture for the area. He expressed they want that
8426
7
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
community to develop properly, and felt they should take their time and do it the
right way.
Mr. Baretta felt the problem was the property was currently zoned commercial,
so if some parcels were assembled, and came to the Board with a commercial
project on it, they would be obligated to approve it. He pointed out the setbacks
would dictate that the project did not come to them in urban form. So while the
zoning is there, Mr. Baretta saw no harm in adding the overlay, because it would
protect the fabric of what they are trying to create, and if two or three parcels
came together, they would have to develop them in a manner the Board would
like to see. He did not think it would promote wholesale development.
Ms. Brooks noted that with the suburban setbacks, if someone wanted to build a
strip center, which is a very shallow commercial center with all the parking in the
front, they could do that. She said it would push the back of the building into
the residential neighborhood, which is something they should think about. Ms.
Brooks said their rational was not to get rid of single-family on the west side but
to buffer it from Seacrest, which is a major road. She pointed out that since the
road on Seacrest was widened, as you back out from your driveway, you are into
the road. She suggested in the future, they look at C-1 for that area which is
just office, that would be a buffer to the single-family homes.
Mr. Greene pointed out there are approximately three vacant parcels along
Seacrest Boulevard in the commercial strip. He stated the remainder is either
residential or institutional. He said the area is already residential and to put the
overlay would encourage people who own or want to purchase the vacant
parcels to buy the adjacent residential parcel, and encourage the expansion of
commercial rather than impede it.
Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that the overlay affects eight lots, three of which are
vacant. There are five houses, three of which are owned by a gentleman who is
putting in a commercial building, which meant they were arguing about two
single-family residential homes.
Mr. DeMarco was glad the issue was brought up and expressed that if it were
ignored, it would have caused some problems.
Ms. Horenburger asked if the person planning to construct the building would be
subject to the overlay if it were approved.
Mr. Fenton felt as the CRA Board, they were supposed to be fostering economic
development, and questioned why they were trying to put in rules to limit
economic development. Mr. Baretta stated they were just trying to reshape it.
8427
8
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
Mr. Greene stated one of the fundamental problems was they did not have the
resources necessary to implement the plan as rapidly as he would like. There
are properties they would love to have acquired, but have not been able to
because they have not been provided the necessary resources. Mr. Greene
reiterated many of these problems would not exist if they had the necessary
resources.
Mr. Hutchinson said his concern was that they were seeing assembly on Federal
Highway, Boynton Beach Boulevard and pointed out that they were losing single
buildings for self-assembly and assembly by developers. Mr. Hutchinson stated
there were only eight properties at the rear corridor, and the reason people were
buying those, was because they were out of inventory that enables a small retail
standalone business or office. Mr. Hutchinson said there was an agency that
tried to buy two lots in that area; not to keep as houses, and the City was
outbid.
Mr. Myott wondered if the development department would consider it a good
thing if all the lots together were to be zoned commercial and had a unified
development plan or project. Mr. Greene said they would not support that at
this time.
Mr. Hutchinson noted that commercial properties could be built in that area
because it is allowed. He urged that they decide whether the area be zoned
residential, making commercial not allowed. He said they could no longer ignore
the matter. Mr. Greene agreed with Mr. Hutchinson's point, but expressed the
problem was that the minute they make that decision, they would have to be in
an acquisition mode which requires resources, and that has been a problem.
Mr. Baretta stated they have to do whatever they can to protect the image they
are trying to create. He suggested passing the overlay and then they could
immediately begin to try to rezone the area. In the interim, if someone tried to
build, at least the project would come in conformance with what they would like
to see.
Mr. Greene agreed the City had to change the zoning, but he disagreed with
putting the overlay in that area, because he felt it would encourage the
expansion of the commercial uses.
Mr. Baretta asked what it would take for the City to declare a moratorium on that
particular street, because he felt that would solve the problem.
Mr. Greene said they would have to go to the Commission and ask for it.
8428
9
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
Ms. Horenburger agreed with Mr. Baretta, and felt maybe the Board should go
forward and recommend a moratorium. Mr. Fenton did not agree.
Mr. Myott asked what the results were when re-zoning and down-zoning, are
requested on property by the City, which would affect individual property
owners. He felt that was a unique and seldom used scenario.
Mr. Baretta expressed the Board has to face the fact that because they had not
re-zoned the area up to this point, they were in a dilemma, and have to do
something about it.
Mr. Greene was concerned about introducing new facts on the ground, in
advance of their ability to move forward with the plan.
Mr. Hutchinson stated he had no problem with them putting the overlay in if they
were going to put a moratorium on that particular street.
Chair Heavilin pointed out it was the general consensus to request the
moratorium on that street.
Mr. Baretta asked what the procedure would be for someone to petition the City
Commission to request a moratorium.
Mr. Greene said if it is the general consensus of the CRA Board, they could go
forward to the Commission with a request for a moratorium.
Mr. Hutchinson stated the consensus would also be to use the overlays in the
other areas as were suggested, leaving the seacrest Boulevard area out of it. He
stated they would bring back the other changes pertaining to the setbacks, to
the Board when they are finished.
Mr. Myott felt they should limit it to the commercial property along Sea crest
Boulevard so they would not mess with the good things happening in Boynton
Terrace, or any Mixed Use project coming in on the east side.
8429
10
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY WORKSHOP
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
There being no further business, the workshop meeting properly adjourned at
6:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine Wharton
Recording Secretary
(May 12, 2005)
8430
11
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS,
CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY MAY 10, 2005
AT 6:30 P.M.
Present
Jeanne Heavilin, Chairperson
Henderson Tillman, Vice Chair
James Baretta
Alexander DeMarco
Don Fenton
Marie Horenburger
Steve Myott
Doug Hutchinson, CRA Director
Ken Spillias, Board Attorney
I. Call to Order
Chair Heavilin called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m, and introduced
Commissioner Ensler and Diana Johnson, President of the Chamber of
Commerce.
II. Roll Call
The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared a quorum was present.
III. Approval Agenda
A. Additions, Deletions, Corrections to the Agenda.
B. Adoption of Agenda
Ms. Horenburger pulled Item IV. H. from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
Chair Heavilin pulled Item IV. C. from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the agenda. Motion seconded by Ms.
Horenburger.
Ms. Horenburger asked if they were postponing the New Business, Code Review,
for the Building Colors along Major Roadways project.
8431
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
Mr. Hutchinson stated it would be postponed until the next CRA regular meeting.
Motion carried unanimously.
IV. Consent Agenda
A. Approval of Minutes, April1ih 2005 meeting.
B. Financial Report.
C. Consideration of Façade Grant Request for James McMillan Jr. for
the property located at 1107 North Federal Hwy.
Chair Heavilin pulled Item IV.C from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
D. Consideration for a Six Month Extension for the Boynton Beach
Boulevard Self-Assembly Group.
E. Consideration for a Six Month Extension for the North Federal
Highway Self-Assembly Group.
F. Consideration of the Budget Transfer Request 2004-2005.
G. Consideration of Human Resources Policy for Paying the Travel
Expenses for Personnel Interviews.
H. Consideration of Payment of Ethics Fine for Charlie Fisher.
Ms. Horenburger pulled Item IV. H. from the Consent Agenda for discussion.
1. Consideration of Ten (10) Foot Utility Easement Over the Northern
Portion of the Relax Inn Property.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved for approval of the Consent Agenda, as amended.
Motion seconded by Vice Chair Tillman and unanimously carried.
Chair Heavjin stated she pulled Item IV.C, which was Consideration for Façade
Grant Request for James McMillian Jr., and asked if the applicant was present.
James Kent McMillan, 1301 SW 27th Ave, assumed the podium.
8432
2
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
Chair Heavilin asked what type of business it was and Mr. Kent stated it was
never a business. He owned the building for a little over three years, but it took
a year to get the permits because of the non-conforming site. He had to get
parking variances and had to put in parking lots and drainage, which was done in
Phase I and Phase II.
Chair Heavilin stated she wanted to know what his plans were for the building.
Mr. McMillan stated three years ago, the original request for the site plan was to
put in a watercraft business. Right now it is still an option, but he also had an
offer from The Dorma Group, which is a local family-based company, to lease it
for office space. He said that would tremendously reduce the parking impact.
Mr. DeMarco asked when the property would be occupied and Mr. McMillan
stated the company would like to move in as soon as he is finished. He expects
to finish within a month, but he might have to do a revision under his current
permit because the company would like to put in some interior walls, so
therefore he cannot give a specific timeframe but hoped they could move in
within three months.
Mr. DeMarco asked if it would be possible to give the CRA office a report every
30 days on the accomplishments, but Chair Heavilin stated that was not a part of
the façade guidelines. Mr. DeMarco stated he was trying to get a time period as
to when someone would move into the office space. Mr. Fenton did not agree,
and stated it was a façade grant approval, and did not think the questioning was
necessa ry .
Motion
Mr. Fenton moved the Board approve the Façade Grant reimbursement request
of $15,000.00 for James Kent McMillan Jr. Motion seconded by Vice Chair
Tillman and carried 6-1 (Mr. DeMarco dissenting).
Chair Heavjlin welcomed Commissioner Ferguson to the meeting.
V. Public Audience
Chair Heavilin welcomed anyone in the audience who wished to speak on
anything not on the agenda.
Brian Edwards, 629 NE 9th Ave, addressed the Board on behalf the Cultural
Center. He stated they had a Board meeting yesterday, and they felt it was
important to come before the CRA Board. He gave a brief report on the 1927
8433
3
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
high school on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Boynton Cultural Center
Inc. A copy of this statement is on file with the records of the meeting.
Ms. Horenburger asked if the team was formed because there was a section in
the statement that said the CRA Director agreed about a team. Mr. Hutchinson
stated there was no building or agreement as yet. They looked at concepts that
would put a team in charge of getting the project started, and their first step is
to have the agreement with the City. He said their draft had been with the City
for 5 weeks and they are awaiting a response.
Ms. Horenburger asked who would be appointing the team. Mr. Hutchison was
not ready to comment on that until they have a building because their entire
focus was on getting an agreement with the City drafted.
Chair Heavilin pointed out the consideration of the Old High School agreement is
slated on the future agenda items for June, which would be a more appropriate
time to discuss the team.
Since no one else in the audience wished to speak, Chair Heavilin closed the
public hearing.
VI. Public Hearing
Old Business
None
New Business
Tile new business item, Code Review for the Building Colors along Major
Roadways project (CDRV 05-009), was postponed until the next regular CRA
meeting.
VII. Pulled Consent Agenda Items
H. Consideration of Payment of Ethics Fine for Charlie Fisher
Ms. Horenburger stated the $300.00 fine charged to Mr. Fisher was originally a
$1500.00 fine. Mr. Fisher claimed staff was responsible for the non-filing of the
form, which was his responsibility, and the ethics committee reduced his fine
stating that having been given erroneous advice by staff at the CRA merits a
reduction in his penalty. Ms. Horenburger did not think the Board or the City
8434
4
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
was responsible for the balance of the fee. Vice Chair Tillman agreed with Ms.
Horenburger and pointed out that when an individual receives an order to
disclose, it is their personal obligation and staff should not be involved. Mr.
Fenton was also in agreement, and asked what the downside would be of them
not paying the fine.
Mr. Hutchinson stated he brought the issue to the Board because from an
economics point of view, they would end up spending more than $300.00 on the
matter when they calculate the time spent dealing with the matter, as well as the
legal input.
Attorney Spillias stated there was nothing that would preclude them from paying
the fine, but on the other hand it was a policy decision of the Board. To the
extent that the Commission on Ethics gave credence to Mr. Fisher's position, they
reduced the fine by $1200.00. Attorney Spillias pointed out that the Ethics Board
determined that at least $300.00 worth of the problem was Mr. Fisher's
responsibility. He felt either decision the Board should make would be fully
defensible.
Chair Heavilin asked if the Board would be setting a precedent if they should
approve. Attorney Spillias pointed out that each case is based on its own facts
and he did not think they would be setting a precedent.
Motion
After consideration of paying the ethics fine for Charlie Fisher, Vice Chair Tillman
moved that the Board does not approve paying the fine. Motion seconded by
Mr. Fenton and carried unanimously.
VIII. Old Business
None
IX. New Business
A. Consideration of the Creation of an Events Coordinator Position and
Pay Scale.
Mr. Hutchinson stated that staff is recommending hiring an Events Coordinator to
assist the Marketing Director with the logistics of planning and implementing CRA
promotions, events and festivals. With regard to the pay scale, they had an
amount which they felt was realistic for the skill sets they were looking for, and
he would report back to the board if he felt they were not able to get competent
8435
5
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
people within that pay scale. He thought they were in a good market range
based on others at that level.
Ms. Horenburger pointed out she would not like to have someone trained for the
position and doing a great job, then leave for a bigger pay somewhere else.
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the Creation of an Events Coordinator
Position. Motion seconded by Mr. Baretta and carried unanimously.
B. Consideration of the June Board Meeting being moved to June 9th,
2005.
Mr. Hutchinson stated he wanted everyone to realize that it was a different
meeting date, as well as a different day. He pointed out the meeting would be
the second Thursday of the month.
Mr. Myott stated he had to attend a Palm Beach County Leadership Graduation
that night, and may not be able to attend. He asked Mr. Hutchinson to find out
if there would be any development plans slated for that meeting, because if they
were he would like to attend.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the rescheduling of June's Board meeting
from June 14, 2005 to June 9, 2005. Motion seconded by Mr. Baretta and
carried unanimously.
X. Commission Action
Mr. Hutchinson felt the Board gave a positive vote on the carwash issue under
the impression that in certain C Districts it would be an issue to come before the
Board rather than automatic.
Mr. Hutchinson stated when the ordinance was presented at the City level, not
only was that taken out, but the M-l use was taken out as specific and put in as
all M-l. This put their M-l into the Ordinance, which was not in it before. He
said the reason he brought it up was because the Commission ended up taking a
recommendation of something that the Board had passed on that had nothing to
do with the Ordinance that was in front of the CRA Board. He pointed out he
would try to work on the issue with the City and staff, because he did not think
the Board would have approved to bring carwashes into their M-l.
8436
6
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
Chair Heavilin stated she understood from speaking to some members of the
Commission that the item was not presented to them the same way it was to the
CRA Board. She felt if the Commission ratified something the CRA did, that they
had to be the same.
Ms. Horenburger pointed out it was done for one piece of property, which is
adjacent to residential property, and she was sorry she supported that.
Mr. Hutchinson stated he would work on the issue because the Board must
consider the Ordinance. He pointed out that what they ended up with affected
them, and the Board had no input on that particular Ordinance.
XI. Director's Report
Mr. Hutchinson reminded the Board the Arts Commission joint workshop with the
City is scheduled for Tuesday, May 24, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. at the Library Program
Room.
Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that almost after a year and a half he had the signed
South Florida Waterman District Permit for the Boynton Beach Boulevard
Extension.
Mr. Hutchinson stated they sent out their proposed series of workshops for
summer, which may be adjusted. Mr. Hutchinson said the workshops would be
held at their office on Thursday nights at 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Fenton asked the time schedule on the trolley system. Mr. Hutchinson noted
the signs were in the process of being manufactured for the trolley schedules,
and the City is committed to installing the signs. Within three weeks the signs
should be up.
Chair Heavilin inquired who the appraiser was on the Mangrove purchase. Mr.
Hutchison stated they were using two appraisers who were specialists. One of
them would be for the Marina area and the other for the Mangroves.
Chair Heavilin inquired about the status on the feasibility study regarding the
Savage Creatures Team. Mr. Hutchinson stated they would bring it to the Board
for approval of the draft in August. Ms. Horenburger asked when the decision
was made on the Savage Creatures Team, because she had a disagreement
about it. Mr. Hutchinson stated he made the presentation a year ago, and stated
in paleontology, the fastest growing area in discovery is in sea creatures, and
there is no museum in the United States that is dedicated to that. Ms.
Horenburger felt it was an evolutionary theory and had disagreements with it.
8437
7
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
Mr. Hutchinson stated she could re-visit the issue when it comes up in the
feasibility
Chair Heavilin needed clarification of the location of the Self Assembly. Mr.
Hutchinson explained it was on the west side of Federal Highway between CVS
and Goodyear.
Chair Heavilin stated the website activity report consisted of lots of paper and did
not think it was necessary to include them in the package.
Mr. DeMarco expressed he was very ill at the last CRA Board meeting, and that
was the reason he left early. He also pointed out that although he does not say
much, his comments are hardly recorded in the minutes. Mr. Hutchinson noted
that since meetings last for three to four hours, it is best when making a point to
say "for the record", which would assure that it is put on the record.
XII. Board Member Comments
None
XIII. Legal
A. Consideration of Quasi-Judicial Procedures for Presentation
Limitation.
Attorney Spillias explained the Board had asked for a draft of the proposed policy
that governs the quasi-judicial hearings with regard to putting some time
limitations on the presentations. He pointed out that the reference of the City
Attorney in paragraphs 2 and 5 of the draft were typographical errors, and
should be the CRA Attorney. Attorney Spillias read the draft of the Boynton
Beach Community Redevelopment Agency Quasi-Judicial procedures as follows:
1. Ex parte disclosures by CRA Board Members.
2. The CRA Attorney outlines the hearing procedure, including a statement
that any member of the Board may, at any time during the presentation
of testimony, question any witnesses.
3. Attorneys or other individuals acting in a representative capacity make
their appearances.
4. Request for identification of any interveners.
8438
8
<.·..".o,·"..";.,··.,,.;:.._~·,..,.~,"";_,_""__"'~....""~""-"",__"""'"<>--_".....-."'"
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
5. The CRA Attorney or City Clerk swears in all witnesses.
6. City Staff members present a summary of the issues before the Board,
testify as to their opinions and make recommendations for inclusion in
"Conditions of Approval". (The CRA generally limits staff presentations to
15 minutes).
7. The Applicant presents its case, including acceptance or objection to
proposed conditions of approval. (The CRA generally limits applicant
presentations to 15 minutes).
8. Interveners present their cases, offer their facts and opinions, and cross-
examine previous witnesses. (The CRA generally limits intervener's
presentations to 15 minutes).
9. Members of the public offer their facts and/or opinions. (The CRA
generally limits public presentations to 3 minutes).
10. Intervener rebuttal/final comments. (The CRA generally limits intervener
rebuttal presentations to 3 minutes).
11. Applicant rebuttal/final comments. (The CRA generally limits applicant
rebuttal presentations to 5 minutes).
12. Staff rebuttal/final comments. (The CRA generally limits staff rebuttal
presentations to 5 minutes).
13. CRA questions and deliberation / decisions.
Attorney Spillias suggested the Board inform individuals they would hold them to
the timelines, unless the Board determines there is good reason to allow more
time.
Mr. Tillman asked if the intervener would be separate from the applicant, and
questioned how they would define who was an intervener. Attorney Spillias
stated the intervener usually opposes the applicant. He said they could ask if
anyone who wished to assume that status, or if someone steps forward and
asked to be an intervener. The person would have to present why they should
be an intervener, and the Board would make a decision.
Attorney Spillias expressed the procedures would be a policy of the Board, and
would not need to be in the bylaws. The time frames would be announced at
8439
9
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
the beginning of the quasi-judicial hearing. For additional notice, they could
attachment the procedures to the agenda; and there is no legal requirement to
do that.
Mr. Fenton felt the public discussion they were having at that point would be
enough to make the public aware of their procedures because it would be in the
minutes. Mr. Spillias said legally that was correct.
Mr. Baretta thought in the interest of not surprising applicants who had a 45
minute presentation that they only had 15 minutes, it might be wise to attach a
copy of the procedures to the agenda.
Ms. Horenburger pointed out that they have three and sometimes four
applications on an agenda, and felt with the timeline procedures, a meeting
would last a very long time. She questioned if they could legally adopt a first
come first serve method, and limit the amount of applications at a meeting. Mr.
Hutchinson said no.
Chair Heavilin pointed out they only had one intervener in five years and that
was not a usual thing to happen. She suggested that since the Board would
already know the background information, that Staff only present what is legally
required.
Vice Chair Tillman suggested that when staff made their presentation, the Chair
of the Board would ask the applicant if they were in agreement, or had any
questions. If the applicant was in agreement, then there would be no need for
a presentation from the applicant.
Ms. Horenburger was concerned how the time would be allocated if the Board
interrupted an applicant to ask questions.
Attorney Spillias pointed out it would be at the discretion of the Chairperson, to
decide whether the questions have taken up a significant portion of the
applicant's time.
Mr. Fenton asked if it was necessary for City staff to read the information, which
the Board already had in front of them. Attorney Spillias reminded the Board
that even though they already have the information, the general public does not,
and it was necessary in order for the public to follow along with the proceedings.
However, it was not necessary to read all of it. He suggested that staff could
summarize it, as long as the main points of staff's findings and recommendations
are spoken so the public has an idea of staff's recommendation.
8440
10
"'+"".,,,.,,.._...,,,.,'..,....,,.,~,..,,,,...,;"'"-<i_"';,;,~____..."'_,"'...."'~._;"'._,.,,;'.,_..'.
MEETING MINUTES
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
MAY 10, 2005
Chair Heavilin stated they addressed that issue previously, and said they should
re-emphasize that with staff.
Mr. Hutchinson suggested that staff read the summary of the recommendations
and the conclusions.
Chair Heavilin asked if the Board should respond to public hearing comments.
Attorney Spillias stated they could respond or ask questions.
Motion
Mr. Fenton moved to formally adopt the quasi-judicial procedures outlined 1-13,
by the CRA Board Attorney, Ken Spillias, with the noted grammatical corrections.
Motion seconded by Mr. Baretta and carried unanimously.
XIV. Other Items
Attorney Spillias noted he was going to be out of the country from Friday, May
13, 2005 until Monday, May 31, 2005. He pointed out jf the Board had any
issues or questions they need resolved to contact Amy Dukes.
There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Catherine Wharton
Recording Secretary
(May 17, 2005)
8441
I I
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY HELD AT THE BOYNTON BEACH LIBRARY, BOYNTON BEACH,
FLORIDA ON TUESDAY, MAY 24,2005 AT 5:30 P.M.
Present:
Jeanne Heavilin, Chair
Henderson Tillman, Vice Chair
James Barretta
Alexander DeMarco
Doug Hutchinson, Director
Absent:
Don Fenton
Marie Horenburger
Steve Myott
I. Call to Order
Chairperson Heavilin called the Special Meeting of the Community Redevelopment
Agency to order at 5:42 p.m. The Recording Secretary called the roll and declared a
quorum was present.
II. Approval of the Agenda
Motion
Vice Chair Tillman moved to approve the agenda. Motion seconded by Mr. Barretta and
unanimously carried.
III. New Business
A. Consideration of the Assistant Director's Contract
Mr. Hutchinson reported that there is a candidate for the Assistant Director position. The
hire of the Assistant Director must be approved and ratified by the Board. There was a
good selection of candidates that applied for the position and an offer has been
extended to Ms. Lisa Bright as evidenced by the contract presented to the Board for
approval. The compensation being offered to Ms. Bright for the Assistant Director
position is at mid-point ($65,500). Mr. Hutchinson noted Ms. Bright's contract was
adapted from his contract; therefore, there would be no departure from his contract.
Mr. Hutchinson pointed out Ms. Bright was a top-notch candidate and her references
were excellent. Mr. Hutchinson introduced Ms. Bright and invited the Board to provide
comments and ask questions.
8442
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
May 24. 2005
Vice Chair Tillman inquired if Legal had an opportunity to review the contract. Mr.
Hutchinson explained Legal prepared the draft shell that had been used for a previous
candidate. The name of the previous candidate was deleted and Ms. Bright's name was
inserted. Also the other provisions that had been added to accommodate the previous
candidate were deleted.
Vice Chair Tillman asked Ms. Bright why she wanted to come to the Boynton Beach
CRA. Ms. Bright responded that her current employer does not have an Assistant
Director position and she feels that she has most of the skills required for the position.
Vice Chair Tillman also asked Ms. Bright what she considered were her primary
strengths, and she responded it was her ability to be a team player and develop long-
term relationships. As far as weaknesses, Ms. Bright stated she was very direct, which
she explained.
Vice Chair Tillman asked Ms. Bright what she could bring to the CRA that would make it
better. Ms. Bright presented her background in various areas. Mr. Hutchinson had
informed her that her role would be more in operations and the day-to-day management
of the CRA. She also has experience with redevelopment, particularly historic
preservation and grant funding.
Vice Chair Tillman noted the CRA is in need of a well-defined human resource element
within its organization, and Ms. Bright thought that one of the reasons she was selected
was due to her background in human resources. In her current position with the Delray
Beach CRA she is in charge of human resources. She has spent eight years
reorganizing Fortune 500 companies and has a great deal of experience in this area.
Mr. DeMarco inquired where Ms. Bright resided and she noted she lived on Swinton
Avenue in Delray Beach and was born and raised in Florida. Eventually, Ms. Bright
would like to move into the City.
Chairperson Heavilin requested to review the contract and questioned why the contract
would be effective one year from October. Mr. Hutchinson explained that his contract
and Ms. Bright's contract require that in October they would be evaluated, which means
a contract cannot end before an evaluation. He pointed out that the contract would start
on October 31st that would allow time for the contracts to be extended at the October
meeting. This same provision is in his contract as well, so that both contracts would be
the same.
Chairperson Heavilin pointed out that Ms. Bright would be on staff for approximately 14
to 15 months before she is reviewed. Mr. Hutchinson responded that Ms. Bright would
still be reviewed in October, but he did not think it was fair to hire her for only four
months under the contract. Only the contract would be up for renewal next year.
Mr. Hutchinson would like to have the contracts changed to three-year contracts, and he
will be doing some research to determine the norm for these types of contract. He felt it
8443
2
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
May 24, 2005
was important that professionals be kept onboard for more than one year. Ms. Bright
was in agreement with this arrangement.
On Page 5, in Section 7.3, the word "sign" should be changed to "signed" in the second
line.
Chairperson Heavilin inquired if Ms. Bright was fired for doing something horrific, would
she receive severance as provided in Section 7.3.1. Mr. Hutchinson responded that
Section 7.3.1. applied to unilateral termination, mutual agreement or resignation. There
would be no severance paid for maleficence. Chairperson Heavilin did not see this
stated anywhere in the agreement.
Vice Chair Tillman noted this language was included in Article 6, but he did not see it
anywhere else in the contract. He would like to have this language included in Article 7
(Termination of Contract) as well.
Mr. Hutchinson stated the Board could approve the contract, subject to this revision.
Mr. Hutchinson said it was included in his contract and he will speak with Legal to have
the appropriate language added to the contract.
Chairperson Heavilin had a question regarding Ms. Bright's duties and functions. She
noted there was no provision that Ms. Bright would act as Executive Director in the
absence of the Executive Director. Mr. Hutchinson stated only the Board could give Ms.
Bright authority to act as Executive Director in his absence. He pointed out that her
duties include supervising the agency staff when applicable.
Mr. DeMarco asked Ms. Bright how this new position differed from her current position
with the Delray Beach CRA. It appeared to Mr. DeMarco that her duties with the
Boynton Beach CRA were different from the ones in Delray Beach. Ms. Bright explained
what her current duties were with the Delray Beach CRA, her primary role being the
right hand to the Executive Director on all executive matters. She is also Secretary to
the Board and keeps staff advised of the meetings, etc. She is the Human Resource
Director for the office and is in charge of all service contracts. She is also responsible
for the properties that the CRA owns. She does public relations on behalf of the Agency
and they are in the process of developing a media plan to address issues in their
community. Ms. Bright supervises the office staff and handles the general duties
connected with that function. She pointed out that the Assistant Director position is a
promotional opportunity for her.
Mr. DeMarco asked Mr. Hutchinson what Ms. Bright's duties would be with the Boynton
Beach CRA. Mr. Hutchinson explained that the Delray Beach CRA does not have the
same program as Boynton Beach. He feels that Ms. Bright's management skills will be
beneficial to the agency. He pointed out that Ms. Bright's focus would be on operations,
which requires a great deal of work and she will be taking on a big management role
compared to Delray Beach.
8444
3
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
May 24. 2005
Mr. DeMarco felt it was important Ms. Bright be aware of what she would be doing for
the Boynton Beach CRA. Mr. Hutchinson explained that he went over this thoroughly
with Ms. Bright during her second interview.
Vice Chair Tillman noted the diverse programs that the CRA is involved in and asked
Ms. Bright about her skills in dealing with the public. Ms. Bright explained she deals
currently with business development grants, affordable housing units and the public on
a daily basis. She stated in her resume that she has the ability to communicate from the
basement to the boardroom. She pointed out the diversity that exists in Delray Beach
and noted she has a sensitivity to people's needs. Ms. Bright has a Master's Degree in
Clinical Psychology.
There was a consensus among the Board that Ms. Bright was the right candidate with
all the necessary skills that the CRA is in need of.
Vice Chair Tillman pointed out it was important that Ms. Bright was aware of the growth
taking place in the CRA, while maintaining the focus of the CRA mission. He felt that
Ms. Bright was well aware of these issues and would be able to carry out the mission
statement.
Mr. DeMarco inquired if the Delray Beach CRA was aware that Ms. Bright was seeking
this position and she responded they were aware of this.
Mr. Hutchinson reported that Ms. Bright would begin her new position June 20th.
Motion
Vice Mayor Tillman moved to proceed with the consideration to hire Lisa Bright as
Assistant Director with the changes necessary in the contract regarding termination as
reviewed by Legal staff and with a starting date of June 20, 2005. Motion seconded by
Mr. DeMarco.
IV. Adjournment
There being no further business, the meeting properly adjourned at 6:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara M. Madden
Barbara M. Madden
Recording Secretary
(May 27,2005)
8445
4
h"..J~c(A-L ~£:PLJ¡¿T
,
'1:7 !J !f C~~
t-J
BOYNTON BEACH CRA
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Requested CRA Date Final Materials Must be
:\'Ieetin!! Dates Turned
into CRA Office
D January 11, 2005 Decembcr 28, 2004 (Noon.)
D February 8, 2005 January 25, 2005 (Noon)
D ~1arch 8, 2005 February 22, 2005 (Noon)
D April 12, 2005 March 29, 2005 (Noon)
D May 10,2005 April 26, 2005 (Noon)
. June 9, 2005 May 26, 2005 (Noon)
NATURE OF . Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM D Director's Report
DATE: June 1, 2005
Requested CRA Date Final Materials Must be Turned into
Meetine Dates CRA Office
0 July 12, 2005 Junc 28,2005 (Noon)
0 August 9, 2005 July 26, 2005 (Noon)
0 September 13,2005 August 30, 2005 (Noon)
0 October II, 2005 Scptember 27, 2005(Noon)
0 November 8, 2005 October 25, 2005 (Noon)
0 December 13,2005 November 29, 2005 (Noon)
0 Old Business 0 Legal
0 New Business 0 Future Agenda Items
0 Other Item
SUBJECT SUMMARY PARAGRAPH: Staff has attached the Urban Groups recommendation to purchase
Glaston E. Sims property located at 909 North Seacrest Boulevard (Parcel 128). The Urban Group has negotiated
the purchase for the Appraised Fair Market Value of $223,725.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff's recommendation is that the CRA Board approves the purchase of the Sims
property located at 909 N. Seacrest Blvd (Parcel 128) for $223,725, in an effort to acquire the property without the
possibility litigation. The owner of the above referenced property made initial counteroffers of $300,000 _
$400,000, and has since agreed to sell the property for $223,725.
EXPLANATION: (Background of the issue: Who, What, Where, When, How, Etc.) This is one of the
properties in the Heart of Boynton located in the right of way to this project. The seller's appraisal by Donald
Muncy for $223,725 is available at the CRA office.
FISCAL IMPACT: The CRA has budgeted $2,000,000 for these projects in this budget year and has $1,409,747
available.
ALTERNATIVES: The aDt rn ative. is. .to.stop the HOB purchases.
10. I /1 ~
-A {C!'JJL/L--} .. /1/(i1L)-;{' . r
. // CRA Staff
i ../ /,"
-~."-"---'--~
8447
C:\Monet_Nicole Shares\Agenda\CRA Agenda Item Request-Sims HOB Property purchase.doc
NEGOTIATION SUMMARY &
RECOMMENDATION FOR SETTLEMENT
Seller:
Glaston E. Sims
Site Address:
909 N. Seacrest Boulevard
Boynton Beach, Florida 33435
Parcel No.: 128
Legal Description:
Lot 145, in Block D, of BOYNTON HILLS, according to the Plat
thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 4, at Page(s) 51, of the Public
Records of Palm Beach County, Florida.
Parcel Identification Number:
08-43-45-21-07-004-1450
Property Type:
Improved Commercial (Businesses include a barbershop and
beauty salon)
Property Assessment Value:
$ 66,359.00
Appraised Fair Market Value
& Date of Value:
$100,000.00/ July 8, 2004 (Craig Keneipp)
.ppraised Fair Market Value:
& Date of Value:
$223,725.00/ October 6, 2004 (Charles Muncy)
Seller's Position:
The owner of the above-referenced property, Mr. Glaston Sims, made initial counteroffers of
$300,000.00-$400,000.00. However, continued negotiations by the agent and an appraisal by
the owner's appraiser, Donald Muncy, resulted in an executed contract of $223,725.00.
Glaston Sims hired Mr. Donald Muncy to appraise the property. Mr. Muncy valued the property at
$203,725.00, with a date of value of October 6, 2004. This value includes $192,500.00
attributable to the real estate and $11,224.00 for interior fixtures and equipment
($192,500.00+$11,224.00 = $203,724 or $203,725.00, rounded).
8448
The Urban Group, Inc. . 1424 South Andrews Avenue. SUite 200. Fort Lauderdale. Florida 33316
TELEPHONE 954-522-6226 . FAX 954-522-6422 . wwwtheurbangroupcom
Negotiation Summary & Recommendation for Settlement
Glaston E. Sims - 913 N. Seacrest Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida
May 26, 2005
Page 2 of 4
Buyer's Position:
The CRA hired an independent State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, D. Craig Keneipp to
determine the fair market value of the subject property. Based on a date of value of July 8,
2004, the fair market value of this property is $100,000.00.
The difference between the property owner's counteroffer and the CRA's offer amount is
$123,725.00 ($223,725.00-$100,000.00). This contract is contingent on the CRA Board
approving the contract amount and a closing time mutually agreed upon on or before sixty (60)
days from the date the contract is approved by the CRA Board.
The language found in the CRA Standard Contract allows the Buyer to complete due diligence
including an environmental assessment. In the event of any adverse findings, the Buyer has the
right to withdraw from the contract without penalty. This clause gives the buyer the right to
cancel the contract by delivering written notice to the seller no later than 5:00 p.m. on the
second business day after the investigation period has lapsed.
Comparison between the Two Appraisals:
Both appraisers utilized the Sales Comparison approach. However, Mr. Keneipp applied
adjustments for site differences with three of his comparable sales having gross adjustments
ranging from 25 to 50%. Mr. Muncy applied adjustments for location and time with a gross
adjustment range of 10 to 20%. Overall, Mr. Muncy's sales were considered marginally superior
and his adjustments were better supported.
A raiser
t Craig Keneipp
Charles D. Munc
Market Value
$100,000.00
203 725.00*
-- 'í\
Range of Gross Adjustments to Sales Price J!
25-50% _~I
20% ~!
* Includes market value of $11,224.00 for furniture/equipment in place.
In addition, Mr. Muncy also relied upon a Fixtures & Equipment Appraisal report provided by
Gary Maehl of Allied Appraisal Services, Inc. Mr. Maehl estimated the depreciated value of the
fixtures/equipment in place at $11,224.00. This value was added to Mr. Muncy's market value of
the real estate of $192,500.00 to arrive at the total estimated value of the subject property of
$203,725.00 (rd). Mr. Keneipp did not use a Fixtures & Equipment Appraiser and considered
these improvements personal property.
8449
The Urban Group, Inc.
Negotiation Summary & Recommendation for Settlement
Glaston E. Sims - 913 N. Seacrest Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida
May 26, 2005
Page 3 of 4
Potential Cost of Litigation
If the CRA were to condemn this parcel, the CRA's costs and property owner's costs of
proceeding through Order of Taking and trial were obtained from Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol,
P.A. In addition, historical cost information was also obtained from the Department of
Transportation's Legal Counsel in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. They projected the CRA's and owner's
combined litigation cost to exceed $45.000.00 ($18,000.00 property owner's costs + $27,000.00
agency costs). The breakdown of costs is as follows:
TYPICAL EMINENT DOMAIN LITIGATION EXPENSES
PROPERTY OWNER! CRA'S COS' I
costs
13 000.00
$0.00
0.00
I $5,000.00
~i $18,000.00
I $4'000'00E'
5 ooo.ÒO. .
I 27 000.00
:ommentsj Recommendations:
The contract purchase price is 123.725% over the CRA's appraised value, and 9.817% over the
property owner's appraisal. In my opinion, both appraisal reports meet minimum USPAP
requirements. However, Mr. Muncy's report was considered superior to Mr. Keneipp's report due
to sales that are more relevant and stronger narrative support throughout the appraisal. In the
event the CRA does not accept the counteroffer, it is likely this property will have to be
purchased through litigation.
In closing, we are recommending the CRA accept the property owner's counteroffer of
$223,725.00. By agreeing to the aforementioned terms, the CRA can avoid risk-exposure related
to a jury verdict above the CRA's appraised value, and avoid additional owner attorney,
appraisal, contractor, expert witness fees, court costs, and O.T. preparation costs.
8450
The Urban Group, Inc.
Negotiation Summary & Recommendation for Settlement
Glaston E. Sims - 913 N. Seacrest Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida
May 26, 2005
Page 4 of 4
The Urban Group, Inc, Review
/~ ~L-/
RUdOíh~i~
Senior Acquisition Agent
j' h / '. ./
/ - (, ))
Date
Submitted By:
___ -----A
Barry Lazarus
Project Manager
")- J. í.o)~-
Date
Boynton Beach CRA Director's Concurrence:
Douglas Hutchinson
BBCRA Director
Date
Boynton Beach CRA Board Approval:
Jeanne Heavilin
Chairman, BBCRA Board
Date
Attachments:
Appraisal
Review Appraisal
Property Owner's Appraisal
One Original Contract
Copies of Notices provided at Initiation of Negotiations (I/N)
cc: Howard Steinholz, File
8451
The Urban Group, Inc.
v. Public Audience
8452
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shaH furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
VI. Public Hearing
8453
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum PZ 05-088
TO:
Chair and Members.
Planning & Development Board
Community Redevelopment Agency Board
Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Division
May 13, 2005
Regulation of building colors on major thoroughfares
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
INTRODUCTION
Concerned for the aesthetic appearance of developments located along the arterial roadway corridors
in Boynton Beach, the City Commission directed staff to consider regulations on building colors, and
to initially obtain input from the two respective advisory boards. Although there was not strong
consensus on all aspects of this issue, both boards generally support increased review of color
changes, oppose the adoption of a specific color pallet, favor an increased review above staffs
administrative review. spoke of importance of having "teeth" in the system such as a required permit
for repainting projects, and that single-family houses should be exempt. Staff reviewed existing
regulations, researched comparable codes, and reviewed color theory including the Munsell Color
Classification System. Based on the understanding that the city desires strict color standards for the
three (3) major corridors including Boynton Beach Boulevard, Congress Avenue, and Federal
Highway, staff has drafted code amendments for consideration.
Staff understands the goal of this effort to prevent the presence of undesirable building colors from
degrading the appearance of major roadway corridors. The challenge to accomplishing this goal is
establishing a regulatory system given the subjective nature of the industry's classification of colors,
the difficulty in attaining consensus on colors, and the need for regulations to be clear. concise and
defensible. Staff also emphasized in this project, the need to maintain an efficient and friendly
development review process that maintains the positive reputation achieved to date, and minimizes
the enforcement burden on staff time and resources.
Options for requlatinq uildinq colors are summanzed as 0 ows:
Regulatory System Regulatory scrutiny Process impact User-friendliness
Mandatory color palate High/Low No affect Depends on choices
Subjective codes w/board Highest More review time Least friendly
review
Color standards (objective) Medium No affect Depends on choices
Relative stnds. (to existing) Moderate No affect Fairly friendly
No color requirements Lowest No affect Most friendly
b
~ II
EXISTING REGULATIONS 0 L¡ 5 L\
The city's regulations are currently void of specific rules governing building colors. Although sign
colors are to be "complimentary to the colors of the structure on which it is to be located", in the
Page 20f6
absence of specific color regulations, staff has applied requirements of Chapter 9. Community Design
Plan, that are specifically applicable to building and architectural design, to colors proposed for new
projects. Chapter 9, under Section 11. Exterior Building Design, reads as follows:
UB. When a distinct development or architectural Dattern exists within
a surrounding two block area, consistency with that pattern shall be required,
unless the pattern of development is in a dilapidated condition. This provision
shall not require buildings to be exact copies of each other. " and
"D. When the area involved forms an integral part of, or is
immediately adjacent to, or otherwise clearly affects the future of any
established section of the city, the desian. scale and location on the site shall
enhance rather than detract from the character, value, and attractiveness of
that section of the city. n
It should be noted that since Chapter 9 applies to new construction and substantial improvements to
existing projects (major modifications), it does not apply to minor modifications.
With respect to minorlmajor plan modifications, Chapter 4. Site Plan Review, lists criteria used to
determine if proposed project changes are major or minor. The following paraphrased excerpt is from
Section 9.C of that Chapter:
C. In making a minor/major modification determination, the planning
director shall consider the following:
1. increase.. .buildable square footage.. ..by more than five (5)
percent.
2. reduce the provided number of parking space below required
number. . ..
LDR.
3. cause development to be below the development standards in
4. Does the modification have an adverse effect on adiacent or
nearby DroDertv or reduce required physical buffers, such as fences, trees, or
hedges.
5. Does the modification adverselv affect the elevation de sian of
the structure or reduce the overall design of the structure below the standards
stated in the community design plan.
6. meet the concurrency requirements.. ...
7. modified site plan does not resemble the approved site plan.
The underlined text represents those criteria occasionally used by staff in reviewing proposed
. changes to proposed colors, despite their intent to address building design, location, and other
elements regulated by the Community Design Plan. If confronted with potentially undesirable
proposed project colors, and by an applicant unwilling to compromise, staff would deem the change
"major" thereby requiring formal site plan review culminating in Commission review. Alternatively, the
applicant could appeal the administrative decision, which similarly, would be reviewed by the City
Commission.
However, this current process not only lacks enforceable codes, but is flawed by virtue, of the
subjective nature of reviewing paint colors. While new site plans facilitate the thorough review of
project colors by both the advisory board and Commission, the minor modification process relies upon
staff to make subject decisions in reviewing acceptable building colors.
~ L\ ~~ l\ k
Page 3 of 6
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Staff has drafted proposed amendments following a city-wide windshield survey (reference
corresponding PowerPoint slide show) to view predominant building colors, consideration of
regulations from other municipalities. and following identification of a subjective color classification
system. The proposed amendments, as described and provided below, begin by adding purpose or
preamble text to establish colors as an important design aspect, adds color changes to applicability
criteria of Chapter 9, defines special road corridor and the corresponding acceptable color groups.
establishes maximum color limits (intensities) based on the Munsell Color Classification system.
places burden of proof of compliance on the applicant, adds color changes as a criteria for
major/minor modification reviews and describes submittal information. The changes also delegates to
the advisory boards the responsibility to review appeals to administrative decisions involving change
in project colors. Prior to codification of final amendments, staff will also incorporate penalty and
enforcement provisions with input from the City Attorney's Office. Entire excerpts of the proposed
amendments are also included as Exhibit ~A".
Preamble
The following text is proposed for Chapter 9. Section 11 (new subsection "K"), and would provide the
basis and importance of new color regulations. This new section is proposed as follows:
K. Building colors. Boynton Beach recognizes that profect
architecture and colors can positively or negatively impact its
aesthetic environment image, and property values. Building colors
should be carefully selected to be compatible with and compliment
Drofect architecture, colors of fixed elements such as roof materials,
and colors of adfacent orofects. Profect colors will be selected to
provide aoprooriate proportions of. and coordinated base, secondaryf
trim, and accent colors. Profect colors are intended to complement
and contribute to the surrounding area and city, rather than primarily
attract attention to a single profect from a distance. The intent of this
section is not to require identical colors, but to require the careful
selection of colors that will contribute to the overall appearance of
the city.
This text documents the importance to the city of building colors; states the importance of careful color
selection, color compatibility, and color hierarchy; and the purpose of colors to contribute to an area
rather than just to a single project. Note that this preamble recognizes the hierarchy in design and
painting of a building by requiring a level of façade detail that facilitates use of a variety of (yet
complimentary) colors for the three different areas of a wall-base or primary wall, secondary portions
of a wall, and the trim and "accent" areas.
Ap plica bilitv
The following text is proposed to Chapter 9. Section 4 (new criterion #5) so that this chapter and the
new requirements are applicable to changes proposed to approved or existing project colors. for
projects that are located along any of the three target roadways. This new criterion reads as follows:
5. When exterior oaint colors are to be changed on an
existing building located as described in Section 11,K.l (onlY
Subsection 11.K applies to orooosr:.d Improvement !l.nless pro~~ also
[nc/ufi.es other modifications as described In this ch~t~r'í. Ch_n_es as
described In section 11.K.l shall be processed as a. a'-or or mInor
sIte plan modIficatIon, and in accordance wIth SectIon 11.K of thl!i
chapter. g L4 S 4 13
Page 4 of 6
This text also clarifies that other requirements of Chapter 9 such as roof top screening, would not
apply to changes that only involve exterior colors.
Color Standards
This text represents the core of the proposed standards, defining the preferred colors or color groups
to which the target roadway corridors are limited, and establishing the upper limit on color intensity (or
saturation) as a quantifiable label defined by the Munsell Color Classification system. The proposed
color groups and Munsell value and chroma limits can be adjusted based on preferences and
consensus from the advisory boards and City Commission.
The Munsell Color Classification system was established by the artist Albert H. Munsell in 1905, to
provide a standard objective classification methodology that uses a rational numerical system rather
than color names to describe different colors. This continues to be a system used by the U.S.
National Bureau of Standards. This system is proposed for the city's color regulations to define the
measurable threshold for acceptable color chroma or saturation (commonly referred to as "intensity".
This system is based around, and further defined by three attributes of color: Hue, Value and Chroma,
and each represented by numerical quality. This system will be further defined by staff as part of the
presentations before the board and Commission; however, it is important to note that the maximum
value and chroma qualities, established in the code, will be applied only when a compromise cannot
be reached with the applicant using basic visual analysis of the proposed colors, against the general
limits described in the code. It should also noted that the burden will be placed on the applicant, when
staff initially determines that the proposed colors exceed the maximums, to obtain and provide to staff
the actual nearest quality scores for the proposed colors from the Munsell classification system. The
proposed standards read as follows:
1. Due to the hiah visibilitv of buildinas located alona Conaress
Avenue. Bovnton Beach Boulevard and Federal Hiahwav. and oarticularlv aiven
the intent of redevelooment olans to beautify and unify Federal Hiahwav and a
seament of Bovnton Beach Boulevard. buildina colors for new oroiects. or
existina oroiects orooosed for minor or maior modification. will be further
reaulated bv the followina reauirements:
a. CommerciaVoffice/industrial oroiects.Base/main wall color will be
liaht (hiah "value'? colors limited to whites. aravs and beiaes. Atvoical buildina
colors such as ourole. oink. blue. areen and teal. should be substituted with
more common oastels or hue cateaories such as vellow or veach. Secondary
colors will not cover areater than 25% of each individual wall area. Secondary
colors will be consistent with the wall color standards. or can be a moderatelv
saturated wall color or a moderatelv saturated comolimentarv color. Trim and
accent colors may be the most saturated colors allowed. and are encouraaed to
be comolimentarv earth tones and/or oastels. The maanitude of saturation will
be orooortional to the saturation of the wall and secondary colors. If orooosed
colors are determined bv the Plannina & Zonina Director to be inconsistent with
the intent of this section. aoolicant shall verify comoliance usina the Munsell
Color Classification System. with eiaht (8) beina the minimum value. and six (6)
beina the maximum chroma. The maximum allowed difference in saturation
between the base color and secondary color is three (3) whole increments. The
aoolicant may be reouired to orovide exact color notations from the Munsell
Color Classification SYstem. to confirm comoliance with these standards.
b. Residentialoroiects (excludina one and two familv structures).
Colors for residential Droiects are allowed to include a areater
aamut of colors. to include whites. beiaes and other earth tones. consistent with
oaraaraoh ilK" of this section. with secondary. trim and accent colors consistent
with oaraoraoh lIa" of this section.
(7 W ,""" w (i
¡, . i ~ \___../
Page 50f6
Note paragraph "1", defines the target roadways similar to how the target roadway corridors are
identified in the preceding. existing subsection regarding overhead doors. Paragraph "a"
accomplishes the following:
1. Recognizes the importance of hierarchy in design and painting of a building by providing
separate standards for the three or four different painting areas of a wall-base, secondary,
and trim or accent; sets 25% as the maximum amount of space for secondary elements;
and recognizes the benefit of compatible diversity through flexibility in using bolder (higher
chroma) colors for trim and accent elements;
2. Establishes acceptable color groups (or "hues") for each area of the façade. This therefore
excludes from use as a base color certain color groups commonly known. for example, as
the "historical palette", which tends to be darker, very saturated colors. "Light" colors are
also known by the industry as "whites" or "white bases"; and
3. References the Munsell system as the standard, and sets thresholds for value and chroma
as 8 and 6. respectively. Note that the two attributes are inversely proportional, as the
higher the "value" the lighter the color, and the higher the "chroma" the bolder (brighter or
more "saturated") the color.
Paragraph "b" accomplishes the following:
1. Excludes single and two family structures from the color regulations; and
2. Provides greater flexibility in color choices by allowing the selected "hues" (color families)
that are excluded from paragraph "a" such as "earth tones".
Minor/Maior Review Criteria
Chapter 4. Site Plan Review, Section 9. Modification of approved site plan is proposed to be amended
to provide the beneficial reference to the new color regulations within Chapter 9, in addition to
requiring all repainting projects to be reviewed for conformance with the preamble of the color
regulations. This is the most significant change other than those changes intended for properties
along selected roadway corridors. While this would increase the review role over repainting projects,
and prevent extremely undesirable colors, it would likely generate significantly more violations and
enforcement activity due to lack of knowledge of the new regulations, or painting activities that would
intentionally disregard new codes. This text would read as follows. beginning with the section title:
Section 9. Modification of existina imorovements 8fJPtO~'-efl site {J.tm
A. Minor: A non-impacting modification which will have no adverse
effect on the 8pp...ov-ed site and development p/aR and no impact upon adjacent
and nearby properties, and no adverse aesthetic impact when viewed from a
public right-of-way as detennined by the planning and zoning director.
5. Does the modification adversely affect the elevation design of the
structure or reduce the overall design of the structure below the standards
stated in the Community Design Plan. Does the modification orooose to reoaint
a oroiect usina existina colors. of which are inconsistent with color standards of
section K. 1 of the Community Desian Plan. or orooose to chanae oroiect
colorrs) inconsistent with color standards of section K.1.
The proposed changes to the section title are unrelated to this color project, and intended to allow
application of the major/minor modification review for current regulations against changes to any
existing site, rather than implying that it applies only to modem day projects improved with a site plan
currently on file. This would prevent interpretations that exempt older sites from being reviewed for
site changes, or from automatically requiring them to undergo formal site plan review when in fact the
proposed changes are "minor". This also prevents codes from discouraging desirable redevelopment
and property improvements, by limiting the extent of regulations that are applicable to older, non-
conforming properties, particularly when it is cost-prohibitive to be brought totally "up to code".
B' 4 5 YD
Page 6 of6
Appeals
This proposed addition to Chapter 1. General Provisions, Article VIII. Appeals, provides the advisory
boards with the responsibility to hear the appeals of administrative decisions leading from the review
of paint colors for conformance with the new color regulations. This new paragraph "5" is consistent
with feedback received from advisory boards during initial discussions. as summarized in the first
paragraph of this report.
5. The Plannina & Develooment Board and Community Re-
develooment Aaencv Board will hear and decide aooeals of admin-
istrative decisions or determination in the enforcement of maior/ minor
site olan modifications involvina chanae in oraiect colors. or comoliance
with other color reaulations.
Definitions
The following definitions are to supplement existing definitions within Chapter 1, Article II, for the
purpose of providing proper documentation for this topic that is new to city regulations. The proposed
definitions are as follows:
The Munsell Color System. A commonly used color measurement methodoloay
usina a rational numerical classification system rather than color names to
describe different colors. This system is based around. and further defined by
three attributes of color: Hue. Value and Chroma. and each represented by
numerical auality.
Hue. The basis of a color. also referred to as the color family usina the primary
and secondary colors.
Value. The liahtness or darkness of a color. also known as the aray scale (Q =
absolute black. 10 = theoretical white).
Chroma. The intensity of a color. also referred to as its strenath or saturation.
Saturation. The intensity. strenath or briahtness of a color.
Base/wall color. The color used for those portions of the wall that represent the
areater surface area compared to the remainder of the facade.
Secondary color. The color used on smaller portions of a wall. or on larae trim
areas of the facade. and should not exceed 25% of each individual wall.
Trim and accent colors. These are buildina colors used on doors. around doors
and windows. alona roof lines or other planes of the facade. or on features used
for architectural enhancement or definition.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDA TIONS
Staff presents these recommend code amendments for consideration by the advisory boards and City
Commission. As indicated above, the only aspect of these proposed regulations known by staff to be
absent, which will still be formulated through collaboration with the City Attorney's Office, regard
enforcement and penalties. Staff also acknowledges that the awareness and understanding of the
business community is vital to the successful implementation of the ultimate regulations adopted by
the Commission. Directly mailed notices to those owners of property located along the target
roadways, may be necessary to maximize the awareness of any new regulations.
MR
Attachments
1$" ~ S l.\ E'
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\SPECPROJ\CODE REVIEW\Colors\staff report.doc
Part III. LDRs, Chapter 4. Site Plan Review
Section 9. Modification of ilJ'J'reved site pfeft.
A. Minor: A non-impacting modification which will have no adverse
effect on the appro'/cd site and development i*afl and no impact upon
adjacent and nearby properties, and no adverse aesthetic impact when
viewed from a public right-of-way as determined by the planning and zoning
director.
B. Major: A modification which presents a significant change in
intensity of use which, in turn, may have a significant impact upon facilities,
concurrency; upon nearby and adjacent properties, or upon findings made at
the time of approval of the site and development plan as determined by the
planning and zoning director.
C. In making a minor/major modification determination, the planning
and zoning director shall consider the following:
1. Does the modification increase the buildable square footage of
the development by more than five (5) percent.
2. Does the modification reduce the provided number of parking
space below the required number of parking spaces.
3. Does the modification cause the development to be below the
development standards for the zoning district in which it is located or other
applicable standards in the Land Development Regulations.
4. Does the modification have an adverse effect on adjacent or
nearby property or reduce required physical buffers, such as fences, trees,
or hedges.
S. Does the modification adversely affect the elevation design of
the structure or reduce the overall design of the structure below the
standards stated in the Community Design Plan. Does the modification
ro ose to re aint a ro 'ect usin existin colors of which are inconsistent
with color standards of section K.l of the Community Design Plan. or
propose to change project color(s) inconsistent with color standards of
section K.1.
6. Does the modified development meet the concurrency
requirements of the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan.
7. Does the modification alter the site layout so that the modified
site plan does not resemble the approved site plan.
'6i...\ S~ ~
F. Required information: The following information must be
presented with a request for a site plan modification:
1. Minor: A letter which sets forth the requested changes along
with an exhibit showing that portion of the site plan which is to be changed
in its present condition and an exhibit depicting the requested change.
Where the proposed changes include project colors, required information will
also include color swatches of the existing and proposed colors, and
corresponding elevation drawings. Photographs or alternative graphics in lieu
of elevation drawings may be submitted if deemed acceptable by the
Planning & Zoning Director. The applicant may be responsible for providing
exact color notations from the Munsell Color Classification system, to confirm
compliance with Chapter 9 of these regulations.
2. Major: A major modification shall contain the same information
as required for a new site plan submittal.
Part III. LDRs, Chapter 9. Community Design Plan
Sec. 4. Applicability.
A. New Construction. This chapter shall apply concurrently and in
direct relation with the requirements of Chapter 4, Site Plan Review of these
regulations.
B. Existing Construction. This chapter shall be applicable under any of
the following conditions:
1. When an existing building is proposed to be enlarged.
2. When exterior alteration or reconstruction of an existing building
is changed and/or alters the effect of the architectural design of the building.
3. When an existing building and/or site is substantially improved.
4. When the occupancy classification of the building changes as
defined by the Standard Building Code.
5. When exterior paint colors are to be changed on an existing
building located as described in Section 11.K.1 (only Section l1.K applies to
proposed improvement unless project also includes other modifications as
described in this section). Changes as described in section 11.K.1 shall be
processed as a major or minor site plan modification, and in accordance with
Section 11. K of this chapter.
r;. L\ c., u r:.:
is ; "-' Î L.:..~
Part III. LDRs, Chapter 9. Community Design Plan
Sec. 11. Exterior Building Design.
I. All building facades of a building that face or are visible from public
or private streets shall be designed to be as attractive in appearance as the
front of the building.
J. Due to the high degree of visibility of buildings located on Hypoluxo
Road, Miner Road, Congress Avenue, Lawrence Road, Gateway Boulevard,
Quantum Lakes Drive, Old Boynton Road, Knuth Road, Woolbright Road,
Boynton Beach Boulevard, Winchester Boulevard, High Ridge Road, Seacrest
Boulevard, Golf Road, Ocean Avenue, Federal Highway, Old Dixie Highway,
N.E. 10th Avenue and S.E. 36th Avenue; most of which are considered
entrances to the City, the following additional exterior design requirements
apply:
1. Overhead doors shall not be located on a building facade(s) that
faces any of the above public or private street.
2. Industrial buildings located on any of the above streets shall be
designed in such a manner so as to disguise their typical warehouse
appearance.
K. Building colors. Bovnton Beach recognizes that project architecture
and colors can positively or negatively impact its aesthetic environment,
imaae, and proDerty values. Building colors should be carefully selected to
be compatible with and compliment project architecture, colors offixed
elements such as roof materials, and colors of adjacent projects. Project
colors will be selected to Drovide apDropriate proportions of, and coordinated
base, secondary, trim, and accent colors. Project colors are intended to
complement and contribute to the surrounding area and city, rather than
primarily attract attention to a single Droject from a distance. The intent of
this section is not to require identical colors, but to require the careful
selection of colors that will contribute to the overall aDpearance of the city.
1. Due to the high visibility of buildings located along Congress
Avenue, Boynton Beach Boulevard and Federal Highway, and particularly
given the intent of redevelopment plans to beautify and unify Federal
Highway and a segment of Boynton Beach Boulevard, building colors for new
projects, or existing projects proposed for minor or major modification, will
be further regulated by the following requirements:
a. Commercial/office/Industrial projects. Base/main wall color
will be light (high "value") colors limited to whites, grays and beiges.
AtyDlcal bulldinQ colors such as purple, pink, blue, green and tear should be
?Lf 5~ H
substituted with more common pastels or hue categories such as yellow or
peach. Secondary colors will not cover greater than 25% of each individual
wall area. Secondary colors will be consistent with the wall color standards,
or can be a moderately saturated wall color or a moderately saturated
complimentary color. Trim and accent colors may be the most saturated
colors allowed, and are encouraged to be complimentary earth tones and/or
pastels. The magnitude of saturation will be proportional to the saturation of
the wall and secondary colors. If proposed colors are determined by the
Planning & Zoning Director to be inconsistent with the intent of this section,
applicant shall verify compliance using the Munsell Color Classification
System, with eight (8) being the minimum value, and six (6) being the
maximum chroma. The maximum allowed difference in saturation between
the base color and secondary color is three (3) whole increments. The
applicant may be required to provide exact color notations from the Munsell
Color Classification System, to confirm compliance with these standards.
b. Residential projects. Colors for residential projects are allowed
to include a greater gamut of colors, to include whites. beiges and other
earth tones, consistent with paragraph "Kft of this section. with secondary /
trim and accent colors consistent with paragraph "aft of this section.
Part III. LDR, Chapter 1. General Provisions
Art. VII. Appeals
D. ASSIGNMENT OF APPEALS. The City of Boynton Beach has several
boards/commissions which deal with a variety of appeals, variances,
exemptions, exceptions, etc., as follows:
1. The building board of adjustment and appeals will hear and
decide appeals of administrative decisions or determinations made in the
enforcement or administration of LDR Chapter 20, Building, Housing and
Construction Regulations and the various building codes and ordinances
adopted by the City. See LDR Chapter 20, Article VII, Section 2D for
detailed information.
2. The City Commission will hear and decide appeals of
administrative decisions or determinations in the enforcement or
administration of excavation, dredging and/or fill permits; platting;
major/minor site plan or master plan modifications and height exceptions.
3. The concurrency review board will hear and decide appeals of
administrative decisions denying a certification of concurrency and/or a
conditional certification of concurrency.
ý' I-t c:> Lf]
4. Repealed by Ord. No. 02-033, § 4, 8-20-02.
5. The Planning & Development Board and Community
Redevelopment Agency Board will hear and decide appeals of administrative
decisions or determination in the enforcement of major/minor site plan
modifications involving change in project colors, or compliance with other color
reaulations.
Part III. LDR, Chapter 1. General Provisions
Art. II. Definitions
The Munsell Color System. A commonly used color measurement
methodology using a rational numerical classification system rather than
color names to describe different colors. This system is based around, and
further defined bv three attributes of color: Hue, Value and Chroma, and
each represented by numerical auality.
Hue. The basis of a color, also referred to as the color family using the
primary and secondary colors.
Value. The lightness or darkness of a color, also known as the gray scale (0
= absolute black, 10 = theoretical white).
Chroma. The intensity of a color, also referred to as its strength or
saturation.
Saturation. The intensity, strength or briahtness of a color.
Base/wall color. The color used for those portions of the wall that represent
the greater surface area compared to the remainder of the façade.
Secondary color. The color used on smaller portions of a wall, or on large
trim areas of the façade, and should not exceed 25% of each individual wall.
Trim and accent colors. These are building colors used on doors, around
doors and windows, along roof lines or other planes of the façade, or on
features used for architectural enhancement or definition.
8~ L1 ~J LJ "j
III
II.
III
~
o
~
.
...
...
.....
.....
.......
....... ~
.......
....... ~.
....... E
.......0 e
...... ~
..... ~
....
...
...
...
..
w
~
"'--
N
~
0,-.
co
-.--
N
~
....-
w
~
--
IU
...
.-
j ð5 ø ~ (D ~ . M
(
o
~ ~
m
--. --. -
N ~ .0
en leA
TO:
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 05-089
Chair and Members
Community Redevelopment Agency Board
Michael W. Rumpf \\.~ V
Planning and Zoning Director
Ed Breese ~
Principal Planner
May 25, 2005
Abandonment of a segment of the 30-foot right-of-way of Railroad Avenue
(adjacent to 415 SE 5th Avenue)
ABAN 05-002
NATURE OF REOUEST
Ms. Jeanne Heavilin of Salefish Realty, agent for James Ploen, is requesting to abandon a portion of an unimproved
3D-foot right-of-way, located on the north side of SE 5th Avenue. This unimproved right-of-way is situated between
a small parcel of land to the east (owned by Mr. Ploen) and the Florida East Coast (FEe) Railroad to the west. The
abandonment request was formally submitted on March 23, 2005. The platted right-of-way subject to this specific
luest is 30 feet wide and approximately 77 feet long. It is described as follows:
A portion of Railroad Avenue as recorded by Pence Subdivision No.1 in Plat Book 1, Page 33, of the Public
Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, said land to be abandoned are described as follows:
That portion of Railroad Avenue being described as bounded on the South by the South line of Lot 11, Block
"B" (North right of way line of S.E. 5th Avenue), as shown in the above mentioned subdivision of Pence;
bounded on the North by the North line of Lot 11, Block "B" bounded on the East by the West line of Lot 11,
Block "B", bounded on the West by the East right of way line of the Florida East Coast Railroad right of way,
as shown by the Plat of Pence Subdivision No.1, recorded in Plat book 1, Page 33, of the Public Records of
Palm Beach County, Florida.
Subject to a 30 foot utility easement.
Exhibit "A" - Location Map shows the general vicinity of the right-of-way to be abandoned. The Exhibit "B"-
"Proposed Abandonment" shows the exact location of the subject site and its legal description. The following is a
description of the land uses and zoning districts of all properties that surround the subject right-of-way.
North -
South -
East
West -
513 and 515 SE 4th Street, zoned Community Commercial (C-3);
Right-of-way for SE 5th Avenue, and farther south City-owned property (Pence Park),
zoned Recreation (REe);
421 SE 5th Avenue, a single family house, zoned Community Commercial (C-3); and
Right-of-way for the FEC Railroad, then farther west is A.A.M. Industries, Inc., zoned
Light Industrial (M1). )$.. L} 5 5 À.
Page 2
Memorandum No. PZ 05-089
ABAN 05-002
BACKGROUND
The subject abandonment request is for a segment of the 30-foot unimproved Railroad Avenue right-of-way, that
fronts on 5th Avenue South and runs northward for a distance of approximately 77 feet. That segment of Railroad
Avenue, located immediately north of the subject right-of-way, was previously abandoned to the properties
immediately north of this parcel (513 and 515 SE 4th Street) in October of 1994, by Resolution 94-171. The 1994
abandonment left only this 77-foot long segment of the unimproved Railroad Avenue right-of-way running south to
SE 5th Avenue, adjacent to the applicant's (Mr. Ploen) property.
ANALYSIS
When a right-of-way, such as this unimproved roadway, is abandoned, the ownership of the abandoned land is
transferred from the City of Boynton Beach to the abutting property owner(s). Typically, two (2) properties would
be affected by an abandonment request. One-half of the right-of-way is conveyed to one (1) abutting property
owner and the other half is conveyed to the other abutting property owner. Since the FEC Railroad is immediately to
the west, fifteen (15) feet of unimproved Railroad Avenue would be conveyed to the Railroad and fifteen (15) to the
applicant, Mr. Ploen. This does not prohibit the two property owners from working out an agreement amongst
themselves after the abandonment is completed by the City, as at that point in time it is a private transaction
involving private property. Adequate public notice was given to all affected property owners in accordance with
Chapter 22, Article III, Section 4 of the Land Development Regulations. All public utility companies have been
notified and the abandonment request has been advertised in the local newspaper. The applicant requesting this
abandonment is the owner of the property to the east, Mr. James E. Ploen.
A summary of the responses from the utility companies and city staff is noted as follows:
CIlY DEPARTMENTS/DIVISIONS
Engineering
Approval with conditions (see Exhibit "c" - Conditions of Approval) or
Suggestion of an alternate method (Revocable License Agreement)
No objection
No objection
Public Works / Utilities
Planning and Zoning
PUBLIC UllLIlY COMPANIES
Florida Power and Light No objection
BellSouth - Approval with conditions (see Exhibit "c" - Conditions of Approval)
Florida Public Utilities Company - No objection
Cable Company (Adelphia) No objection
Cable Company (Com cast) N/A
Excluding BellSouth, all public utility providers have indicated that they have no objection to the applicant's request
for abandonment and BellSouth, due to an active buried telecommunication cable in the right-of-way, will provide a
letter of no objection with the provision of the necessary easement for the buried cable (see Exhibit "c" -
Conditions of Approval). Additionally, in support of BellSouth, the Engineering Division is also requiring
establishment of a utility easement to preserve access to BellSouth utility lines. The Engineering Division has also
suggested an alternative method to abandonment, in the form of a Revocable License Agreement, which would
allow the applicant use of this unimproved right-of-way, while the City maintains ownership. Under this agreement,
no structures could be constructed over the right-of-way subject tQJhe license.
Q . >
ð Y '5_5 t)
Page 3
Memorandum No. PZ 05-089
ABAN 05-002
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has determined that the subject right-of-way does not serve a public purpose, and therefore is recommending
approval of the request to abandon the 30-foot unimproved roadway as described above, subject to the comments
included in Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions recommended by the Community
Redevelopment Agency Board or City Commission will be placed in Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval.
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\415 SE 5th Avenue Aban\ABAN 05-002\Staff Report.doc
'6y55 L.
I I EXHIBIT A
...
/ en
rn
.þ
1 In. = 164.3 feet ~AVE -4 CJ)
::t:
- / en ...,
-4
",
~
:I:
~
¡ Ç-3 C Omm¡Ui i~ I Com mere ial
SE 4TH AVE
f
r L--J
I en
m
I .þ
-4
::t:
S IT ~
I
I
SE 5TH AVE SE5THAVE SE~' ~ AVI
¡ I
I
I
en
,
I ,
I
. ~ ~ Recreati~ en J
1 1!!Ri )Í1 II m
. ~
)
" ,'M ::x: ï
I) ¡UJ ~ :::t:
-4 fen ~
J
J
I ! I c_ __
I SE 6TH AVE ,- SE v' '0 AU" --.::n:::.UI
I ,
I I
I I
dentiaJ"
Re si I
, I
I
:n I
m
I
.... I
'/) J
-I I ~
'/) ,
I
-I I I :z:
¡ ! cn en ~
I m m
I Co) ~ W
I SE 7TH AVE ¡ I ;:IJ C
I
1 C :J: W
IL.
I I I en ~
I -4 CIJ
I
f I
415 SE 5th Avenue Abandonment ot Right-ot-Way ~~ ' rr
'~~.. L¡ S c~ 'Y",
I "CO _-'" .__c_ ~ .
¡~
!i:i~
r~
Joteph M. Tucker. fl. L.S.
EXHIBIT B
BOUNDARY SURVEYS
MORTGAGE SURVEYS
CONSTRUCTION LAYOUT
219 S.E. 23rd AVENUE - P.O. BOX 759 . BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA 33435
BOYNTON BEACH Phone (561) 737-6546 . Fax (561) 734;7546
- -- - - -~
PORTION OF RAILROAD A VENUE
TO BE ABANDONED
A PORTION OF RAILROAD AVENUE, AS RECORDED BY PENCE SUBDIVISION NO.1, IN PLAT BOOK 1,
PAGE 33,OF TIlE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID LAND TO BE
ABANDONED ARE DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
TIIAT PORTION OF RAILROAD AVENUE BEING DESCRIBED AS BOUNDED ON TIlE SOUTH BY TIlE
SOUTH LINE OF LOT 11, BLOCK "B" (NORTII RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF S.E. 5 TH AVENUE), AS SHOWN
IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED SUBDMSION OF PENCE; BOUNDED ON TIlE NORTH BY THE NORTH LINE
OFLOT 11, BLOCK "B",: BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY THE WEST LINE OF LOT 11, BLOCK "B',; BOUNDED
ON THE WEST BY THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF M FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD RIGHT
OF WAY, AS SHOWN BY THE PLAT OF PENCE SUBDMSION NO.1, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1 PAGE
33, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY FLORIDA '
, ,
~
~ 5 I .5 ¡ ,
$,. ¡. ~8K ,.J.. J;¡p
.-!--
I.
10 ~ 9 .~
" r /2 ·f
13 .¡
1.5 a:: 16 ~ ~
W
CD 1/ '. ¡
-' ~ A
19 ::D 20
.,. "., Z ¡'I
..
,_w
CERTmCATION:
, "
~ 2
~ .3 4
: ~ Park
:¡ ~ . Ó .5
~ Raserve
., ~
li¡ 7 8
~'- 10 9
JIi" " ,;;". .
~
\
I HEREBY CERTIFY TIIAT TIlE DESCRIPTION AND TIlE ATTACHED SKETCH OF DESCRIPTION WERE PREPARED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SURVEYING STANDARDS, CHAPTER 61G176, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, SET FORTII ,:
BY THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL SURVEYORS AND MAPPERS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 472.027, FLORIDA i
STATUIES, AND IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, UNLESS IT BEARs THE I
SIGNATURE AND THE ORIGINAL RAISED SEAL OF A FLORIDA LICENSED SURVEYOR AND MAPPER, TIllS DRAWING,
SKETCH, PLAT OR MAP IS FOn. INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT VALID
/
A~ Ø?
. TUCìŒR, TE
RE STERED LAND SURVEYOR
ATE OF FLORIDA
." I
o·:t I
$~~~;I / c/' é
LB 2102
Joe Tucker
N01E: THIS IS NOT A SKETCH OF SlJ,RVEY, BUT ONLY A GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS
OF TIIE DESCRIPTION SHOWN HEREON, TIIERE HAS BEEN NO FIELD WORK
VIEWING OF 1HE SUBJECT PROPERTY, OR MONUMENTS SET IN CONNECTION. .
wrrn mE PREPARATION OF THIS INFORMATION ~OS~!
N01E: LANDS SHOWN HEREON \>VERE NOT ABSTRAC~D BY TIIE SURVEYOR
FOR RlGHTS OF WAYS, EASEMENTS OR RESERVATIONS OF RECORD
Phone:
~èoca (561) 391--4388
Boynlon(561) 737-6546
FAX (561) 734-7546
JOSEPH M. TUCKER. P.LS.
219 S.E.23rd Ave. . P.O. Box 759
Boynton Beach. FL 33435
Ú\
,
t~
~
~
~
~
~
{¡
~
~
~I
()
()
,
Q
D
~
£r
t
Lq.
r Ce/;>".,.." .0-'?e ~6:c. -€"'/rOQd Æ?/t-v
,v.~_~__
?Z
F¿DR/D4 ¢A'.57 C04s?
R,.q/¿ .eo~L)
~
,
('j
--
,-- ---
~
.f)
().
~
~
\.. ~ fA
~ ~ ~\
~ P, ~
~ ~I ~
" I . I't t'\
B ~S
~ f\ '\
~I\\
f\
(:)
"
~
~
~
lQ
"'-J
--.-
~
~ ~ }
~ c-- ~N
~ -l- "'" . ~ I\.
- ~ ~ 0 '-I "
,,~ "" ~ D ~ ~
~'-J'. ~ () ~ ~
~c. '::- .~
." ~Ö 0 () h'
--¿%, ~ "-
-~Ú- ~-: ~ "
~ ¿-"" ~
'" ~ -:L- I 1'(¡'
<::3 :
-
-L
.'
//~8h
¿ ~ ~/ /~
Eas / //7 7S-ì¿ tJ:}
7//oó~ '
. . -4,th S7:--i
,5, E., _ ..
- S;> LJ (~_ s F
{) I"~)
. -------,¡-r=-~ 4
N. (:>2 - ~ L~ __._~
. - J Z 'of G __
.s1:;~6.']-_.__ ._..
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Abandonment of a portion of the 30-foot right-of-way of Railroad Avenue
(adjacent to 415 SE 5th Avenue)
File number: ABAN 05-002
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments: None
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None
UTILITIES
Comments:
POLICE
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: None
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments: None
PUBLIC UTILITY PROVIDERS
~. 't-J ,S5 (7
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments:
1. Provision of a utility easement satisfactory to BellSouth and City Engineering.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments:
2. None
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
3. To be determined.
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\415 SE 51/'1 AYe Aban \ABAN 05-002\COA.doc
\" ~I S ~:-) Ii
DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME: Abandonment of a portion of the 30-foot right-of-way of Railroad Avenue
(adjacent to 415 SE 5th Avenue)
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Ms. Jeanne Heavilin of Salefish Realty
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 915 S. Federal Hwy., Boynton Beach, FL 33435
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION:
July 5, 2005
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request abandonment of a portion of a 30-foot unimproved road right-of-way
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Generally located immediately north of 5th Avenue north, between 415 SE 5th
Avenue to the east and the FEC Railroad to the west.
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the findings
and recommendation of the Community Redevelopment Agency Board, which Board found as follows:
OR
X THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the relief
sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative staff and the
public finds as follows:
1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with the
requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
2. The Applicant
HAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set forth on
Exhibit "C" with notation "Included".
4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
_ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms and
conditions of this order.
7. Other
"'ATED:
City Clerk
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\415 SE 5th Avenue Aban \ABAN 05-002\DO.doc
8~tjSSI-
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING &. ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 05-095
TO:
Chair and Members
Community Redevelopment Agency Board and
Mayor and City Commission
THROUGH:
FROM:
Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning and Zoning
Eric Lee Johnson, AICP ~
Planner 0
DATE:
June 2, 2005
PROJECT
NAME/NUMBER:
REQUEST:
Peninsula at Boynton Beach (LUAR - 05-004)
Amend the future land use designation from Local Retail Commercial
(LRC) and High Density Residential (HDR) to Special High Density
Residential (SHDR); and to rezone the property from (C-3) Community
Commercial and (R-3) Multiple-family Residential to (IPUD) Infill Planned
Unit Development.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Property Owner: Ms. Jennie A. Smith
Applicant: Waterbrook Developers, LLC.
Agent: Ms. Kim Glas-Castro and Ms. Bonnie Miskel with Ruden McClosky
Location: East side of Federal Highway approximately 1,600 feet north of Gateway
Boulevard (Exhibit "A'')
Existing Land Use: Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and High Density Residential (HDR)
Existing Zoning: Community Commercial (C-3) and Multiple-family Dwelling District (R-3)
Proposed Land Use: Special High Density Residential (SHDR - 20 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning:
Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD)
Proposed Use:
30 fee-simple townhouse units and 40 multi-family (condominium)
dwelling units
?L5~)
Page 2
File Number: LUAR 05-004
Name: Peninsula at Boynton Beach
Acreage:
3.51 acres (152,974 square feet)
Adjacent Uses:
North:
Developed commercial property within the Town of Hypoluxo, designated
Residential-Multiple Family (RH) land use and zoned Commercial Marine
(CM);
South:
Vacant property designated High Density Residential (HDR) and zoned
Multiple-family Dwelling District (R-3);
East:
Right-of-way for Intracoastal Waterway;
West:
Right-of-way for U.S. 1 and then right-of-way for Florida East Coast
Railroad.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff recommends approval of the requested land use amendment and rezoning for the
following reasons:
1. The proposed redevelopment is located in the Federal Highway Corridor Community
Redevelopment Plan Study Area I and therefore meets the criteria for consideration of
the land use amendment as described in Policy 1.16.1 of the Future Land Use Element
of the Comprehensive Plan;
2. The project would not create additional impacts on infrastructure that have not been
anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan;
3. The proposed site plan is consistent with the intent and requirements of the IPUD
regulations and meets the requirements for compatibility with the adjacent properties
based on the proposed uses, landscaping buffers, and setbacks; and
4. The proposed project will have a positive impact on values of adjacent property and will
contribute to the overall economic development of the City.
PROJECT ANALYSIS
Chapter 163.3187, Florida Statutes states the requirements for small-scale Comprehensive Plan
map amendments. The proposed amendment must involve a use of fewer than ten (10) acres
and a residential use must have a density of ten (1O) units or less in density, unless the subject
property is located in an area designated for urban infill, urban redevelopment, or downtown
revitalization. The parcel, which is the subject of this land use amendment, totals 3.51 acres.
Even though the requested density is greater than 10 du / ac, it is located within a recognized
redevelopment area. Because of this and the size of the property under consideration, the
8~ ,5(, A
Page 3
File Number: LUAR 05-004
Name: Peninsula at Boynton Beach
amendment qualifies as a "small scale" amendment. A "small-scale" amendment is adopted
prior to forwarding to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and is not reviewed
for compliance with the state, regional and local comprehensive plans prior to adoption.
Master Plan I Site Plan Overview
The IPUD regulations are intended to be used in situations where new development or
redevelopment is proposed within an already developed area or neighborhood located in the
Federal Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan Study Areas I and V. A mixture of
uses, including residential, retail commercial and office, may be allowed to the extent that no
land use conflicts would result and the basic intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive
Plan would be followed. When the IPUD is to be developed in a single phase, the Site Plan for
that development may also represent the Master Plan. A request for Site Plan Approval is being
processed concurrent with this request for future land use map amendment and rezoning.
It is a basic public expectation that landowners requesting the use of the IPUD district would
develop design standards that exceed the basic development standards in terms of site design,
building architecture and construction materials, amenities and landscape design. The extent of
variance or exception to basic design standards, including but not limited to requirements for
parking spaces, parking lot and circulation design, and setbacks, would be dependent on how
well the above stated planning expectations are met in the proposed development plan.
The IPUD shall minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property. The City is not obligated to
automatically approve the level of development intensity requested for the IPUD. Instead, it is
expected to approve only such level of intensity that is appropriate for a particular location in
terms of land use compatibilities. The City may require, as a condition of approval, any
limitation condition, or design factor that will provide a reasonable transition to adjacent
development.
In order to be approved, an IPUD project must be compatible with and preserve the character
of adjacent residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, it must be an enhancement to the overall
local area and the city in general. Presentation of projects that fail to do so would be denied.
Each IPUD project is independent and is evaluated solely upon its own merits. The inclusion of
certain features in a previously approved IPUD project may not be entertained as a valid
argument for the inclusion of that same feature in any other IPUD project if the City decides to
reject those features. While the details of the proposed site plan are a companion agenda item,
a brief overview of the site plan is included below.
Site Plan Analvsis
The Special High Density Residential land use category allows a maximum of 20 du / ac. In this
instance, the applicant is proposing a development containing 70 units for an overall density of
20 du / ac (19.94 du / ac). The 70 units are proposed within seven (7) separate buildings on
the 3.51-acre site. According to the floor plans, the townhouse buildings would have five (5)
units each. Each unit proposed within the two (2) story townhouse buildings (Buildings 100 and
200) would have 3-bedroom and private backyards that would be large enough to
OJ.~ .5 G ~I3)
Page 4
File Number: LUAR 05-004
Name: Peninsula at Boynton Beach
accommodate a small-sized swimming pool. The number of bedrooms proposed within these
three (3)-story townhouse buildings (Buildings 300 through 600) would range between two (2)
bedrooms and four (4) bedrooms. Finally, the condominium building would have a mix of two
(2) and three (3) bedrooms per unit. The IPUD zoning district allows a maximum building
height of 45 feet and up to four (4) stories tall. However, a lesser building height could be
imposed if compatibility with the adjacent properties would be in jeopardy. The project
proposes seven (7) separate buildings of varying heights. The elevations (sheet A4) of the two
(2)-story townhouse building show that the midpoint of the pitched roof would be 29 feet - 11
inches in height. The elevations of the three (3)-story townhouse building (sheet A6) show that
the midpoint of the pitched roof would be 38 feet - four (4) inches in height. Finally, the top of
the roof of the condominium building would be 45 feet in height. The parapet wall (for the flat
portion of the roof) would be 50 feet in height. As previously mentioned, the abutting property
directly to the north is not located within city limits. Its zoning (Town of Hypoluxo -
Commercial Marine) allows for a maximum building height of 35 feet. This difference in
maximum building heights between the subject project and the existing marina building is not
an issue. The IPUD zoning district contains no specific minimum building setback requirements
other than mirroring the setbacks of adjacent zoning districts. The required building setbacks
important to this project would be the building setbacks along the north and south property
lines. The property to the north has a minimum required side setback of 15 feet. The existing
building is therefore non-conforming and is not the problem for the current developer. The site
plan shows that the two (2) story townhouse buildings would be located 24 feet from the north
property line. The three (3) story townhouse buildings, proposed closest to the existing marina
building, would be located 10 feet - six (6) inches from the north property line. Again, the non-
conforming marina building would impact this project more so than the townhouses would
impact the marina. Finally, the four (4)-story condominium building would be located 20 feet -
two (2) inches from the north property line.
Review Based on Reauired Criteria
The criteria used to review Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings are listed in the
Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Section 9, Administration and Enforcement, Item C.
Comprehensive Plan Amendments: Rezonings. These criteria are required to be part of a staff
analysis when the proposed change includes an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map.
a. Whether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with applicable
comprehensive plan policies including but not limited to, a prohibition against
any increase in dwelling unit density exceeding 50 in the hurricane evacuation
zone without written approval of the Palm Beach County Emergency Planning
Division and the City's risk manager. The planning department shall also
recommend limitations or requirements, which would have to be imposed on
subsequent development of the property, in order to comply with policies
contained in the comprehensive plan.
The subject property is located in the hurricane evacuation zone; however, the proposed 70-
unit development would be replacing an existing legal non-conforming use that is licensed for
45 mobile home units. The Mobile Home Relocation Plan, which was submitted by the
<...;:< Lf' L 1- /"
.) J ~/ c__
Page 5
File Number: LUAR 05-004
Name: Peninsula at Boynton Beach
applicant, indicates the site is developed with 37 mobile homes. Deducting from the number of
licensed homes, the proposed development would increase the number of homes by 25 units.
Furthermore, the proposed project would replace an antiquated mobile home park with
improvements that are significantly less vulnerable to the effects of major winds on older
mobile homes since they must meet minimum standards for High Velocity Hurricane Zones as
required by the Florida Building Code. Policy 1.12.1 of the future Land Use Element states the
following:
"The City shall adopt and enforce regulations to require that all new residential
developments of more than 50 units~ which are located in the Hurricane
Evacuation Zone~ will provide continuing information to residents concerning
hurricane evacuation and shelters through the establishment of a homeowners'
or residents' association'~
Therefore, approval of this rezoning is contingent upon the subsequent creation of a
homeowners' or residents' association (see Exhibit "B" - Conditions of Approval).
The criteria for assigning the Special High Density Residential land use category are found in
Policy 1.16.1 of the Future Land Use Element:
"This land use category shall consist of redevelopment and infill residential areas
assigned to this land use category in the portion of the designated Community
Redevelopment Area identified as Planning Area I and Planning Area V in the
"Federal Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan'; adopted on May
15, 2001. "
The proposed redevelopment is located in Planning Area I, as defined in the above-cited
redevelopment plan, and therefore is consistent with this portion of Policy 1.16.1.
The Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD) Zoning District as set forth by the City of Boynton
Beach ("City') was created for the purpose of allowing flexibility to accommodate infill and
redevelopment on parcels less than five (5) acres in size specifically within the "Federal
Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan" Study Areas I and V. The intent of the
IPUD zoning district is to allow for a mixture of uses, including residential, retail commercial and
office uses. Additionally, the IPUD zoning district was created to ensure compatibility of infill
redevelopment with adjacent existing single-family development, to clarify setback
requirements and to provide standards for building design elements. The IPUD zoning
regulations state that "it is a basic public expectation that landowners requesting the use of the
IPUD district will develop design standards that exceed the basic development standards in
terms of site design, building architecture and construction materials, amenities and landscape
design". Additional expectations of the IPUD are to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding
property; to be compatible with and preserve the character of adjacent residential
neighborhoods; to be an enhancement to the local area and the City in general; and, that it is
independent and will be evaluated solely on its own merits.
S~i 50 b
Page 6
File Number: LUAR 05-004
Name: Peninsula at Boynton Beach
Other policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan that are applicable to this request include
the following:
Policy 1.19.1- The City shall continue efforts to encourage a full range of
housing choices, by allowing densities which can accommodate the approximate
number and type of dwellings for which the demand has been projected in the
Housing and Future Land Use Elements, including the provision of adequate sites
for housing very-low, low-, and moderate income households and for mobile
homes;
Policy 1.19.7- The City shall continue to change the land use and zoning to
permit only residential or other non-commercial uses in areas where the demand
for commercial uses will not increase, particularly in the Coastal Area; and,
The requested land use amendment and rezoning are consistent with both policies since it
would remove the possibility that commercial development could be built on the front portion of
the property (in the portion with the LRC land use classification). In addition, the requested
changes are consistent with the following strategies for Planning Area I, as stated in the Federal
Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan:
Encourage a variety of housing Develop intensity standards that allow for a
variety of housing styles and types at intensities that will assist in supporting the
downtown area and general economic expansion; and
Require a transition to the adjacent gatewav neighborhoods Create development
standards in the city entrance communities that establish a logical transition to
the gateway communities. Building scale, massing, and placement should be
less intense than that of the adjacent planning areas, but substantial enough to
announce an arrival in the City.
b. Whether the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use
pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby
districts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property
owner as contrasted with the protection of the public welfare.
The requested land use amendment and rezoning would promote efficient use of the subject
property. The property's location within both the Community Redevelopment Area and
Planning Area I of the Federal Highway Corridor suggests that the requested increase in density
is appropriate for the area. The property to the north, located outside the city limits, is
developed as a non-conforming commercial marina but can be developed with 11 du / ac at a
maximum height of 35 feet. Currently, the vacant residential property to the south could be
developed for residential uses at maximum density of 10.8 du / ac and a maximum height of 45
feet. While the requested density is greater than that of the abutting developments, it is
consistent with the transition in uses recommended in the Federal Highway Corridor Community
Redevelopment Plan. It is also typical of the development pattern in the coastal area, where
there coexists a combination of both single family neighborhoods and multi-family
developments. Each development's heights may vary greatly based on the type of development
?Lj_Sl)f
Page 7
File Number: LUAR 05-004
Name: Peninsula at Boynton Beach
they are, often without consideration for abutting development. However, incompatibility with
lower densities (for this project) is a non-issue because no single-family residential land uses
are abutting the subject property. The accompanying site plan (NWSP 05-013) meets the
intent of what staff envisioned when creating the SHDR land use and IPUD zoning district.
c. Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable.
The property is currently developed with an aging mobile home park. The redevelopment of
the property is desirable for beautification, economic benefit, as well as for the purpose of
removing storm-vulnerable housing from the coastal high hazard area. The proposed rezoning
maintains the residential character of the area, and will provide an aesthetically pleasing living
environment in proximity to the downtown.
d. Whether the proposed use would be compatible with utility systems, roadways,
and other public facilities.
Projected utility systems demands and traffic generation impacts were provided by the applicant
and are shown below.
Maximum Potential Water / Sewer Traffic
Development Population Demand Generation
Potential Trips / day
Existing Land Use 41 mobile 93 persons* 11,968 gpd* / 259*
(Actual) Mobile Homes homes* 9 600 aDd*
Proposed Development 70 dwelling 159 persons 30,100 gpd/ 490
units 13,545 aDd
* Statistics derived from the land use / amendment application and its supporting
documents
The applicant submitted a traffic study and it was forwarded to the Palm Beach County Traffic
Division for their review and approval. The Traffic Division reported that the proposed land use /
zoning change meets the Traffic Performance Standards (TPS) of Palm Beach County because
the proposed development is located in the county designated Coastal Residential Exception
Area. The project is expected to generate 39 peak hour a.m. trips and 45 peak hour p.m. trips.
No building permits are to be issued by the City after the 2007 build-out date.
Utilities staff reported that water and sewer capacity exists to provide for the 18,132 gallons per
day increase in water demand and the 3,945 gallons per day required for sewer service. The
applicant is encouraged to pay the applicable reservation fees associated with the above
referenced services
With respect to solid waste, the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority has stated that
adequate capacity exists to accommodate the county's municipalities throughout the 10-year
planning period. Regarding school concurrency, the proposed project lies within Concurrency
Service Areas (CSA) 17 and 19. Based on the School District's adopted multiplier's for an
0'1 ,5 t~ F
Page 8
File Number: LUAR 05-004
Name: Peninsula at Boynton Beach
average multi-family dwelling unit, the proposed 70 units would generate five (5) elementary
school students, two (2) middle school students, and four (4) high school students. The
schools currently serving the area and their utilization are as follows:
Schools Current Capacitv Current Enrollment Utilization%
Rolling Green Elementary 842 812 98%
Congress Middle School 1343 1126 84%
Boynton Beach High 2448 1933 79%
School
On March 29, 2005, the School District issued a Concurrency Determination for the site plan,
valid for one (1) year. However, it should be noted that beginning with the 2004-2005 school
year, the level of service for all CSA's would be reduced to 110%. Projects that have been
approved when construction commences in 2004 or later would be subject to further evaluation
against the 110% level of service (LOS) for school concurrency. Furthermore, the schools
referenced above that would currently serve the proposed development are subject to change
due to boundary adjustments, to equalize utilization, or to provide capacity for the new student
growth. Lastly, drainage would also be reviewed in more detail as part of the review of the site
plan application. The accompanying site plan would have to satisfy all requirements of the city
and local drainage permitting authorities.
e. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the current and
future use of adjacent and nearby properties, or would affect the property
values of adjacent or nearby properties.
The proposed land use amendment / rezoning would be compatible with the current and future
use of properties located to the north, south, east, and west of the subject property in
accordance with the vision for the corridor as represented by the redevelopment plan. There
are no indications that the proposed amendment / rezoning negatively impact property values.
The applicant states that the new development would have a positive impact on the value of
surrounding properties and is likely to spur investment in adjacent properties which would
further increase their values. Staff concurs that the development would have a positive effect
on values of adjacent properties.
f. Whether the property is physically and economically developable under the
existing zoning.
The subject parcel was previously developed with mobile homes. However, these one (l)-story
structures are not the highest and best use of the site. Under the current zoning category, the
R-3 zoning district allows for a residential density of 10.8 dwelling units per acre. The site could
be developed with single-family detached housing. However, the narrow configuration of the
property and the value of waterfront properties are factors which limit the diversity in terms of
? '-is Ç~ì CJ
Page 9
File Number: LUAR 05-004
Name: Peninsula at Boynton Beach
residential development alternatives. This property, which is eligible for the IPUD zoning
category, would allow a residential density of up to 20 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
zoning change would allow for greater flexibility in terms of use, density, and setbacks.
g. Whether the proposed rezoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the
needs of the neighborhood and the city as a whole.
The requested land use amendment and rezoning present the opportunity for redevelopment in
a highly visible entrance corridor to the City and would also support the current trend toward
greater residential uses in this area, economic revitalization, and downtown redevelopment.
Anticipated impacts to traffic, and demands for water and sewer are minimal, basically because
there is relatively little increase in the number of residential units. The proposed project would
have a positive impact on property values and visual impacts to adjacent properties would be
minimized through good project design, appropriate setbacks, and dense landscaping and
buffering. This site and its project characteristic are consistent with Objective 1.13 that
discourages urban sprawl by creating a compact urban area within the City and City's utility
service areas.
h. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the city for the proposed use, in
districts where such use is already allowed.
In accordance with the definition of the Special High Density Residential land use designation in
Policy 1.16.1 of the Future Land Use Element, residential densities of 20 du / ac are permitted
in the Federal Highway corridor to encourage infill development and redevelopment. There are
a limited number of sites elsewhere in the city where residential development could occur at a
density of 10.8 du / ac; however, those sites do not offer the opportunity for redevelopment
and infill development that this location affords. Nor would development of those available
sites serve to promote the goals of the Community Redevelopment Agency and the Federal
Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan. It is more difficult to redevelop a site rather
than develop a vacant site. Therefore, redevelopment efforts should be embraced because to
do so, would be consistent with many of the Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and their
subordinate policies.
CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
As indicated herein, this request is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
respective redevelopment plan; would not create additional impacts on infrastructure that
cannot be accommodated, meets the intent of the IPUD regulations, and would contribute to
the overall economic development of the City. Therefore, staff recommends that the subject
request be approved subject to the developer creating a homeowners' or residents' association
as per Policy 1.12.1 of the future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. If the
Community Redevelopment Agency Board or the City Commission recommends conditions, they
will be included within Exhibit "B".
S:\Plannlng\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Penlnsula @ Boynton Beach\LUAR 05-o04\513ff Report.doc " '" I
ðl) -S rc ~
EXHIBIT "B"
Conditions of Approval
Project name:
File number:
Rfì
Peninsula at Boynton Beach
LUAR 05-004
S ff M d P&Z05095
e erence: ta renort emoran urn -
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS
Comments: None
UTILITIES
Comments: None
FIRE
Comments: None
POLICE
Comments: None
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments: None
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: None
PLANNING & ZONING
Comments:
1. The City shall adopt and enforce regulations to require that all new
residential developments of more than 50 units, which are located in the
Hurricane Evacuation Zone, will provide continuing information to
8 Lf' I//-) ---
~ If,' ..J-
Page 2
Peninsula at Boynton Beach
File No.: LUAR 05-004
, DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I
residents concerning hurricane evacuation and shelters through the
establishment of a homeowners' or residents' association. Therefore,
approval of this rezoning is contingent upon the subsequent creation of a
homeowners' or residents' association.
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
COMMENTS:
Comments:
2. To be detennined.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Comments:
3. To be detennined.
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Peninsula @ Boynton Beach\LUAR 05-004\COA.doc
DySC,=r
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 05-091
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Chair and Members
Community Redevelopment Agency Board and City Commission
¡/Lve-.-
Michael Rumpf I' -
Planning and Zoning Director
Eric Lee Johnson, AICP ç.~
Planner V
THRU:
FROM:
DATE:
June 2, 2005
PROJECT NAME/NO:
REQUEST:
Peninsula at Boynton Beach
New Site Plan
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Property Owner: Ms. Jennie A. Smith
Applicant: Waterbrook Developers, LLC.
Agent: Ms. Kim Glas-Castro and Ms. Bonnie Miskel with Ruden McClosky
Location: East side of Federal Highway approximately 1,600 feet north of Gateway
Boulevard (Exhibit "A")
Existing Land Use: Local Retail Commercial (LRC) and High Density Residential (HDR)
Existing Zoning: Community Commercial (C-3) and Multiple-family Dwelling District (R-3)
Proposed Land Use: Special High Density Residential (SHDR - 20 du/ac)
Proposed Zoning: Infill Planned Unit Development (IPUD)
Proposed Use: 30 fee-simple townhouse units and 40 mUlti-family (condominium)
dwelling units
Acreage: 3.51 acres (152,974 square feet)
Adjacent Uses:
North:
Developed commercial property within the Town of Hypoluxo, designated
Residential-Multiple Family (RH) land use and zoned Commercial Marine
(CM);
South:
rLJ 5 ~
Vacant property designated High Density Residential (HDR) and zoned
Staff Report - Peninsula at Boynton Beach (NWSP 05-013)
Memorandum No PZ 05-091
Page 2
Multiple-family Dwelling District (R-3);
East:
Right-of-way for Intracoastal Waterway;
West:
Right-of-way for U.S. 1 and then right-of-way for Florida East Coast
Railroad.
PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION
Owners of properties within 400 feet of the subject new site plan were mailed a notice of this request and
its respective hearing dates. The applicant certifies that they posted signage and mailed notices in
accordance with Ordinance No. 04-007.
Site Characteristic: The subject property is comprised of one (1) rectangular-shaped lot with the
eastern portion supported by a seawall cap. The lot is located within the Federal
Highway Corridor Community Redevelopment Plan Study Area 1. According to the
Mobile Home Relocation Study, the subject site was licensed as a Prospectus Park
by the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) in 1986
for 45 mobile homes. The Study indicates that Lake City Trailer Park is improved
with 45 mobile home lots or spaces, but only 32 lots are currently occupied with
units. Of the 32 mobile home lots or spaces, 25 are currently leased by long-term
tenants while the remaining seven (7) lots are occupied by short-term tenants, two
(2) of which, are motor homes and the other, a recreational vehicle. The property
is licensed with 45 mobile homes by the city's Occupational License office. The
existing density of the mobile home park is non-conforming because the property is
zoned R-3 with an underlying land use of LRC and HDR, both of which, would allow
for only 10.8 dwelling units per acre. The site is currently developed at 12.8
dwelling units per acre.
As indicated on the survey, several easements traverse the property in varying
locations. The most notable easements are located along the north and south
property lines where the presence of FP&L power lines run in an east-west
direction.
BACKGROUND
Proposal:
The applicant is proposing a new site plan for the construction of 3Ò townhouse
units and 40 multi-family (condominium) dwelling units. Approval of this project is
contingent upon the approval of the corresponding request for land use change
and rezoning (LUAR 05-004). Both townhouses and condominiums are permitted
uses in the IPUD zoning district. Under the Special High Density Residential
(SHDR) land use category, the maximum allowable density would allow a total of
70 dwelling units at a density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The site plan proposes
70 dwelling units and a project density of 20 dwelling units per acres (19.94 du /
ac). No phasing plan was submitted. However, staff understands that the entire
project would be built in one (1) phase starting with the condominium building.
¥~ S 1- þ>.,
Staff Report - Peninsula at Boynton Beach (NWSP 05-013)
Memorandum No PZ 05-091
Page 3
Concurrency:
ANALYSIS
Traffic: A traffic statement was sent to the Palm Beach County Traffic Division for
concurrency review in order to ensure an adequate level of service. The County
has determined that the proposed residential project is located within the
designated Coastal Residential Exception Areas of the county, and therefore meets
the Traffic Performance Standards of Palm Beach County. No building permits are
to be issued by the City, after the 2007 build-out date. The County traffic
concurrency approval is subject to the Project Aggregation Rules set forth in the
Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance.
Utilities: The planned purchase of up to 5 million gallons of potable water per day from Palm
Beach County Utilities would supply potable water for this project. Local piping and
infrastructure improvements may be required for the project, dependent upon the
final project configuration and fire-flow demands. These local improvements would
be the responsibility of the site developer. Sufficient sanitary sewer and
wastewater capacity is currently available to serve this project, subject to the
applicant making a firm reservation of capacity, following approval of the site plan.
Police I Fire: For the purposes of this study, a statistical analysis was completed to show the
percentage of increase in police calls to the project area. Response data for 2004
recorded 12,419 calls for service to Zone 1, which represents 18.2% of all calls for
service. An increase of 12% of total calls for service is projected from anticipated
growth citywide. The proposed project would further add to the demand for an
adequate level of public service to this area. The need for additional officers in
Zone 1 is evident by the high percentage of calls for service required of a single
officer. All zones area affected by new development and redevelopment projects
approved throughout the city. Police services have been impacted and the demand
for an additional police officer would be warranted to balance the increase in
demands.
Fire staff reviewed the site plan and determined that current staffing levels would
be sufficient to meet the expected demand for services.
Drainage: Conceptual drainage information was provided for the City's review. The
Engineering Division has found the conceptual information to be adequate and is
recommending that the review of specific drainage solutions be deferred until time
of permit review. All South Florida Water Management District permits and other
drainage related permits must be submitted at time of building permit (see Exhibit
"C" - Conditions of Approval).
School: The School District of Palm Beach County has reviewed the request and determined
that adequate capacity exists to accommodate the dwelling units.
$?~57-Ts
Staff Report - Peninsula at Boynton Beach (NWSP 05-013)
Memorandum No PZ 05-091
Page 4
Driveways: The project proposes one main (1) point of ingress and one (1) main point of
egress. The point of ingress would be comprised of two (2) entrance lanes. Since
this would be a gated community, a circular driveway (that empties into the egress
lane) is proposed with 66 feet of vehicular queuing. This is proposed for safety
concerns should a visitor not be allowed access into the site. The driveway, drive
aisles, and turning radius, internal to the development, would be improved to
conform to current city engineering standards.
Parking Facility: Two (2) and three (3) bedroom dwelling units require two (2) parking spaces per
unit. The project proposes a mix of two (2) bedroom, three (3) bedroom, and four
(4) bedroom dwelling units for a total of 70 dwelling units. A recreation /
clubhouse area is also proposed, which would require an additional five (5) spaces.
Therefore, the project requires a total of 145 parking spaces based on the number
of units and the recreation amenity. The site plan proposes a total of 176 parking
spaces or an excess of 31 spaces.
The site plan and floor plans show that each townhouse unit would have a two (2)-
car garage. There is a difference however, in the number of parking spaces
provided between the two and three story townhouses. Each two (2)-story
townhouse unit would have driveways wide enough to accommodate two (2)
parked cars; no driveways are proposed for the three (3)-story units. Extra guest
parking for the three (3)-story units is proposed along the south and north property
lines in the 90-degree parking stalls. With regards to guest parking, the plan goes
above and beyond the minimum code requirements and fully meets the intent on
what staff envisioned when creating the IPUD ordinance. The ground floor of the
condominium building would have 63 understory parking stalls. The site plan also
would provide for an additional 22 outdoor spaces (near the condominium building).
This would provide the required parking for condominium building as well as the
five (5) spaces for the recreation facility.
According to the site plan, the 90-degree parking stalls would be dimensioned nine
(9) feet in width by 18 feet in length. The handicap parking spaces would be
dimensioned 12 feet in width (with an extra 5-feet of striping) and 18 feet in
length.
Landscaping:
According to the site plan tabular data (sheet A1), the proposed pervious area
would equal 0.819-acre or 23.3% of the site. The Plant List indicates that 87 of the
99 shade trees (88%) of the shade trees would be native while 93 of the 177 palm
trees (53%) would be native. Likewise, 4,066 of the 7,750 or 53% of the shrubs /
groundcover plants would be native. This meets the requirements of Chapter 7.5,
Article II, Section 5.P of the Land Development Regulations.
The site plan (sheet A1) shows that the western landscape buffer (adjacent to U.S.
1) would vary in width but would be at least 17 feet at its narrowest point. The
project would be a gated community, with a combination of an opaque wall and
open-fence material proposed within the buffer. As proposed, it would be setback
approximately three (3) feet from the west (front) property line. The perimeter
plantings proposed between the wall / fence and the property line would include a
<is 4 :~-.+ C
Staff Report - Peninsula at Boynton Beach (NWSP 05-013)
Memorandum No PZ 05-091
Page 5
row of Redtip Cocoplum hedges and Geiger trees. However, staff recommends
increasing the setback of the fence / wall from three (3) feet to seven (7) feet in
order to accommodate additional shrubs and groundcover along the sidewalk (see
Exhibit 'C" - Conditions of Approval). Four (4) Foxtail palm trees and clusters of
various groundcover plants are proposed on the street side of the wall (underneath
the subdivision sign). Staff recommends that these four (4) foxtail palm trees be
installed at a minimum of 16 feet in height to provide for a more substantial
entranceway (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval). The plant material
proposed east of the wall but west of the two (2) story townhouse building include
Cabbage palm, Redtip Cocoplum hedges, Florida Gamagrass, and Evergreen Giant
groundcover. Again, staff recommends increasing the height of the Cabbage palm
trees from 12 feet to 18 feet at the time of installation. The development's front
entrance would be heavily landscaped with an array of trees, hedges, and
groundcover.
Adjacent to the developed commercial property to the north, the width of the
proposed north side landscape buffer would vary, between six (6) feet at its
narrowest point and 10 feet - six (6) inches at its widest point. As previously
mentioned, a six (6) foot wide FP&L easement runs along the entire north property
line (within the buffer). The landscape plans propose a row of Gieger trees and
Redtip Cocoplum hedges. The types of trees and shrubs that can occur within this
buffer are limited and must comply with Florida Power & Light's (FP&L's) Right Tree
- Right Place publication. According to the applicant, all trees would be in
compliance with the publication. A six (6) foot tall wall is proposed within this
buffer as well. It would be located approximately 10 inches from the property line.
The width of the rear (east) landscape buffer, adjacent to the Intracoastal
Waterway, would vary but would be approximately five (5) at its narrowest point.
The function of the landscape material is not to "buffer" against the waterway but
rather to provide for a more tropical environment at the pool and sundeck areas.
The plant material would include the following: Geiger Tree, Cabbage palm,
Alexander palm, Redtip Cocoplum, Wild Coffee, and Hairgrass.
Adjacent to the vaca nt residential property to the south, the width of the south side
landscape buffer would be four (4) feet - eight (8) inches at its narrowest point. An
FP&L easement also extends along the south property line. The plant material
proposed within this buffer would include the following: Geiger tree, Silver
Buttonwood, Southern Red Cedar, Foxtail palm, Thatch palm, Redtip Cocoplum,
Wild Coffee, Variegated Arboricola, Boston Fern, and Dwarf Arboricola. Similar to
the north landscape buffer, a wall, six (6) feet in height would run along the south
property line as well. The developer states that the landscape buffers and height
of wall along the northern and in particular, the southern landscape buffer should
mitigate any potential glare from vehicle headlights. Staff concurs.
g , ',S r:r J5
Cross-section "A", "B", and "c" (s'tfeet LP6), illustrates the configuration of the
landscape buffers, parking lot, landscape material, and buildings. It shows the
heights of the condominium building, current marina building, and the townhouse
buildings. The dimensions were excluded from the plan. Originally, staff had
Staff Report - Peninsula at Boynton Beach (NWSP 05-013)
Memorandum No PZ 05-091
Page 6
concerns regarding the buffer widths, plant type, and quantity. Similar to the
Seaview Park Club project, the central focus for this project was to mitigate any
potential impact on surrounding properties. The property to the north has already
been developed with boat storage as a commercial marina. The proposed project
would not impact the property to the north; rather, if anything, the property to the
north would negatively impact the subject project. However, the south landscape
buffer is important to the compliance of this project with regards to design and
compatibility requirements and standards of the IPUD zoning district. The subject
property abuts residentially-zoned property, albeit it is vacant and multiple-family
zoning. Staff recommends that the plant material proposed within the south
landscape buffer be installed in such a way as to provide immediate buffering. This
can be accomplished by installing all proposed trees at their maximum height
(within their specified range of heights) without jeopardizing the visual buffering of
lower-to-mid-Ievel screening above the wall and inserting additional palm trees
within the south landscape buffer in areas where tip-to-tip spacing is not entirely
accomplished (see Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval).
Building and Site: As previously mentioned, the applicant is requesting to rezone the property to the
IPUD zoning district with a density of 20 dwelling units per acre. The maximum
density allowed by the Special High Density Residential land use classification is 20
dwelling units per acre. The 70 units are proposed within seven (7) separate
buildings on the 3.51-acre site. According to the floor plans, each townhouse
building would have five (5) units. Each unit proposed within the two (2) story
townhouse buildings (Buildings 100 and 200) would have 3-bedrooms and private
backyards that would be large enough to accommodate a small-sized swimming
pool. The number of bedrooms proposed within each three (3)-story townhouse
building (Buildings 300 through 600) would range between two (2) bedrooms and
four (4) bedrooms. Finally, the condominium building would have a mix of two (2)
and three (3) bedroom units.
The IPUD zoning district allows a maximum building height of 45 feet and up to
four (4) stories tall. However, a lesser building height could be imposed if
compatibility with the adjacent properties would be in jeopardy. The project
proposes seven (7) separate buildings of varying heights. The elevations (sheet
A4) of the two (2)-story townhouse building show that the midpoint of the pitched
roof would be 29 feet - 11 inches in height. The elevations of the three (3)-story
townhouse buildings (sheet A6) show that the midpoint of the pitched roof would
be 38 feet - four (4) inches in height. Finally, the top of the roof of the
condominium building would be 45 feet in height. The parapet wall (for the flat
portion of the roof) would be 50 feet in height. As previously mentioned, the
abutting property directly to the north is not located within city limits. Its zoning
(Town of Hypoluxo - Commercial Marine) allows for a maximum building height of
35 feet. This difference in maximum building heights between the subject project
and the existing marina building is not significant. This position is justified for
several reasons. First, the subject project is a redevelopment project that would
enhance the overall area from its current state (mobile homes) to luxury dwelling
units. Generally, zoning codes are created to protect residential uses from
commercial uses, not visa-versa. The Cross-Section "B" as illustrated on sheet LP6,
'6 L-j5 r1 ~
Staff Report - Peninsula at Boynton Beach (NWSP 05-013)
Memorandum No PZ 05-091
Page 7
shows that the three (3)-story townhouse buildings are proposed immediately
opposite to the adjacent marina building. Both would be roughly the same height
so therefore, the location of the three (3)-story townhouses would serve as an
appropriate transition for the subject development. As previously mentioned, the
property to the south is residentially-zoned but currently vacant. Its maximum
building height (under the R-3 zoning code) could be 45 feet. However, it should
be noted that the subject property extends eastward (into the Intracoastal
Waterway) more so than the abutting property to the south. The proposed four
(4)-story condominium building would be located on the eastern portion of the
subject property. With this location, while it would block northwestern views from
future units proposed on the abutting property to the south, it would be situated to
maximize distance from those future units. Conversely, the two (2) and three (3)-
story buildings are proposed in the central portion of the subject property that
would abut the property to south (where a 45-foot tall building may be constructed
under the current R-3 regulations). If anything, the vacant property to the south
could have more of an impact on the subject property (if built-out at 45 feet) than
the subject property negatively impacting the property to the south. The only
differences between the two properties are the minimum required building
setbacks; maximum building heights would be similar.
The IPUD zoning district contains no specific minimum building setback
requirements other than mirroring the setbacks of adjacent zoning districts. The
required building setbacks important to this project would be the building setbacks
along the north and south property lines. The property to the north has a
minimum required side setback of 15 feet. The existing building is therefore non-
conforming and is not the problem for the current developer. The site plan shows
that the two (2) story townhouse buildings would be located 24 feet from the north
property line. The three (3) story townhouse buildings, proposed closest to the
existing marina building, would be located 10 feet - six (6) inches from the north
property line. Finally, the four (4)-story condominium building would be located 20
feet - two (2) inches from the north property line.
The required setbacks for the R-3 zoning district to the south that are germane to
this project are as follows: Side - 20 feet and Rear - 40 feet. This project
proposes varying south (side) setbacks that range between 20 feet - two (2)
inches (for the condominium building) and 78 feet - eight (8) inches (for the
townhouse buildings). It should be noted that the three (3) story townhouse
buildings would be located 38 feet from the south property line. The balconies
proposed on the south building façade would extend southward by three (3) feet
but the edge of the balcony would still be 35 feet from the side (south) property
line. The rear (east) setback would be 20 feet and the front (west) setback would
be 40 feet. In conclusion, all proposed building setbacks would be consistent with
the existing setbacks within the surrounding neighborhoods and meet the intent of
the IPUD zoning district setback.
Outdoor patios and swimming pools are proposed on the north building facades of
the two (2) story townhouse buildings. Several notes on the site plan (sheet A2)
indicate the proposed setbacks for swil'!1mi~_ pools and screened enclosures.
'ð J-f.5 1- t--
Staff Report - Peninsula at Boynton Beach (NWSP 05-013)
Memorandum No PZ 05-091
Page 8
Generally, swimming pools would be setback six (6) feet and screened-enclosures
would be setback seven (7) feet from the north property line. The recreation area
would be located at the eastern portion of the development overlooking the
Intracoastal Waterway. It would include a 1,285 square foot cabana building and a
swimming pool. The elevation (sheet A12) of the one (l)-story clubhouse does not
indicate the dimension at the peak of the roof but shows that the mean roof height
would be 13 feet in height and the deckline would be 10 feet - nine (9) inches.
This clubhouse building would be located 10 feet - two (2) inches from the north
property line.
As previously mentioned, a decorative wall / fence is proposed along the west
property line. It would be six (6) feet tall with decorative caps proposed at six (6)
feet - eight (8) inches in height. A majority of the wall would be painted Popcorn
White while the open fenced portion would be metal painted black. A fountain is
proposed on the street (west) side of the wall. It would serve as an aesthetically
pleasing entrance feature in combination with the project's proposed signage.
Design:
The design of the proposed buildings / clubhouse resemble a mixture between a
Spanish-Mediterranean style with its smooth stucco finish and S-tile roof and a
modern design with its decorative green Metropolis shutters, decorative railings,
multi-color awnings, and pre-cast decorative columns and accents. The exterior
walls of the buildings would be multi-colored consisting of the following ICI Dulux
paints: dark brown (Bridge Lodge - 176), brown (Sun Valley - 183), yellow
(Coneflower - 39), light yellow (Taffy Pull - 39), and cream (Popcorn White - 10).
The plans propose two (2) different types of lighting fixtures. The detail (sheet
LP6) shows that the light poles would be either 12 feet or 16 feet in height. The
photometric plan indicates that minimal or no light would "spill over" from the
subject property to the abutting properties.
As part of the IPUD ordinance, internal sidewalks and pedestrian connects are to
be maintained throughout the development. The site plan does not show a
sidewalk that leads in front (south) of the two (2) story townhouse buildings.
Likewise, there would be no pedestrian connection to the sidewalk within the U.S. 1
right-of-way. However, the applicant has designed several sketches (that have not
been included within this packet) that could demonstrate compliance with this
requirement. Therefore, at the time of permitting, the applicant shall incorporate a
sidewalk into the design that would lead pedestrians from the townhouses to the
sidewalk that exists within the Federal Highway right-of-way (see Exhibit "(" -
Conditions of Approval).
The site plan proposes several gazebos / pavillions throughout the development.
This is a positive amenity that the residents would enjoy. Their presence
throughout the development would only increase the quality of the project and is
fully endorsed by staff. The gazebo would be 16 feet - eight (8) inches in height
while the pavilion would be 30 feet in height. The details of both are shown on
sheet A3. They would be the same colors of the buildings.
~~~5'1-E1
Staff Report - Peninsula at Boynton Beach (NWSP 05-013)
Memorandum No PZ 05-091
Page 9
Signage:
The Entry Wall Elevation (sheet Al) shows that a sign would be located on the wall
near the front entrance on U.S.!. The site plan indicates that the sign portion of
the wall would be setback 10 feet from the front (west) property line. The
Elevation shows the wall / sign structure would be six (6) feet in height and 32
square feet in area. The sign would have black granite back-tile with brass letters
and a brass compass symbol. The site address must be added to the sign (see
Exhibit "CIf - Conditions of Approval).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff reviewed this project for compatibility between it and the adjacent properties. Factors considered in
determining compatibility included the following: land use, density, height, dwelling type, style, activity,
and performance. Staff reviewed these characteristics against the intent of the IPUD zoning regulations
taking into account the built environment of adjacent properties and development characteristics within
the coastal areas. Staff has reviewed this request for new site plan approval, and based on the analysis
contained herein, is recommending approval of the site plan, contingent upon the successful request for
land use amendment / rezoning (lUAR 05-004) and subject to satisfying all comments indicated in Exhibit
"CIf - Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City Commission
shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval.
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Peninsula @ Boynton Beach\NWSP OS-013\Staff Report.doc
(") U c:- '---1 - L
Ó 1-') '-r rT
----¡
.','
¡
Exhibit 'A' - Location Map
r--f--)¡ (\, \,
, II I I' " ',',!
! r- ------ IL--_L -,II ) i \\ \ /
I 1---__ 11 /- ----.¡ ! ! 1-' \.. /
;:.... / Li _ _ _-_-_ - ~I/:'/ ~- - ---- I' II !-) //} :
~_ ~ I r---l----------__ , /\ / !
B, I r------¡ / r---lL-t--r-L~] --/1 I /) .~~/// )
J:.- 1 1----- - j'l '-_-__1 \ ---<---_J L " / i
I - i -ì I \..
- ¡ ~-=_~----- ¡ t: --_1/ r---7 I I -\---:=--',¿-::-r---~------------- )
~ I I ----I ! , J J L_ I I I -----ì r--_____ t
~ I 1---__ j II j'---ì- /1 I ---j' II ¡---- ---] !--____ ì :
'-' I! --¡ i i L__ I L_--- ,'---I'
æ I ,:=====.1 r--~:=-:::-~-=-¡¡ -- I I , r:-:~~j I
/ 1 -¡I/ :,-___ II I I L'-----",l¡ ¡~~--'-1 i
, (-------'--¡' I _]1 ' I '---~-
I', t/ '- I I I I ,'----," I --.-----
L--____J L-----l I I ' I L I
1- -=::--::-'=~-____T~j~--"'==---j==fl
CITY/LIMITS I
CITY LIMITS
I
I
i
I
R-3
Dimick Road
L
;:....
~
Cl>
.....
~
3
-
-
E
(J)
en
o
(.)
~
.....
E
---1 ~
I_~~
Potter Road ~
..c
t
o
Z
w+.
s
175 87.5
I
o
175
350
525
700
I Feet
EXHIBIT B
~
IV>
:::;
,m
~~
.,
""
..
~
··Z÷::-
¡;;
'i ,L!
f: ~~
~
'1 ~
~
...._or
~- Lj S -:¡. ~-1
COLESTOCK & MUIR
ARCHITECTS, P.A.
... I ge H. 0...& Hwv.. STUØtO Owe. lace", fltATOfoj, I"L 33-431
P"OME: IS., I) 3Ç1~-, 787 F_: Ise I J 3g~'3:t3S
COI'POIII.ttL.IeVtKNo M<J00313/ [...... CN"'_-C~r:~.C()too
THE P"EN1N5UL.... . eoYNT<'N eEACI-I
WATE~
2.'" ~ ÆDEItAL. Hr.
I!IOTNT<'N IlEACI-I ,.___
fDALN eEACI-I caiNn-. I'\. ,_.._ _
!D
_ c
F
., ~
~ G)
,
'"
. ~
ð
. ~
-
o
:E
, ~
ii8
, U>
"m
~ c U>
EXHIBIT B
.H
ï -
'I
f
. ...
~.-
.t.
ii
... U
~§
1"1"
~~
§§
IUilUb ~
did;;! ! !
!~ 1¡11i ~
iRleUu~ !
1-.iU e
ell I
~.¡
,t.
ï -
'q ,
~
n
~.,
sd
¡ ši:
~ ã9
..-
,t.
ï -
'I
I
. ...
[§]~~D
~Ll S
COLESTOCK -r M U I R TI-IE I"ENINeUL.... el!OTNTON eEACH
Ul WATE~
ARCHITECTS, P. A. 2.".NOItTHPI!OEIItAL WY.
... I gO N. Dna.. ttWY'.. STuDtO ONe. eocA "A1"OfoI. I'L 33....3 I ISO'T'NTON BEACH II
PMOMW:: (SO.J 305-' ?ð? "-,uc (5e I) 30S-3S.3S ,.AI.... _eAC:t-l __ ~TY R.. ...... -- 'i
~..ft.l..ICVtkNøM<X:JO:131 [N....,CNA._~CON ~I~ -'. ".".......... ç.~~
EXHIBIT B
.~..~w--E i
11I111i' ß
~"I·el!i~ ~ ~
il i,01iil~ §
!nl~h!l~ ~
5~ I¡in ~
Rléll!!! ~!
G'IUi a ~
ell I
AS
II
i i
iin
~...~...
dU
uu
i i
"~§e
hr~
~"s'"
dd
P'È>
e2ð§
AS
II
~
~
OJ
C
F
, 0
z
.. G)
c..>
4( q,
--i
I
:JJ
" m
en
Ö
:JJ
" -<
ö
~
z
, ð
c
en
m
en
Ii
; ¡¡ ,.,-J_t.·:
~I!!I!! I
~~~ i
ª~u .!~.
~U~~
!~~g;
Hn
II
II
i
¡I~
¥
~
[!]~~DI.ICOLESTOCK & MUIR __"~~M~
~ I I ¡ ~ ..:*\.¡:::.': ARCH ITECTS, P. A. ~:=.~.
. ..' .,ae N. DeIinC HWY.. !tn.IOIO ONe. eoc... flt.t.TOJrt. P"L 33....31 I5OTNTON I!II!AC:H
. I i fI P__: ..e, 138.5' I 78" F'_: (!5e I .385·35.35 ......1 _ _~ ~TY mlll..........___
. ~..'ÆlJCDtHHOM<J00313 ["__CN"'_~co.o ""'W'I~ ,~ ..-..... ....... ~
~)4 ,,5 r:t L
g
¡;:
~ ª
¡¡3:
...,
:~
EXHIBIT B
.
MAT~ LINE
.~
" ID
c: .~.......--E i
F i i
.. 0 1!lllllh ~
'2 I I
G)
I( :-0' ! !
8 tdtl-tt i ~
" 2 lUll;!! § II
8
:;;: 5~ Ulil ~
'2
" c I I
:;;: Iii 11m I:
m
r
- m 1~I¡n ~
<
-~
:'6 ell I (;" ..' rr-=tl"l
.,.2
I( qCJ) .) Lj :>
[!][!]~D COLESTOCK & MUIR
ARCHITECTS, P.A.
.... QQ N. Dt..~ HW"r'.. STUDtO ONK. eoc.. ......TOH. ~ 33<431
P..,OtfI;; (~O 1) 39~- I 78?' f"_: (:JO II 3Q~·3e,3~
~...'I. UCv.K NO. M<IOOJ I 31 [....- CN"_~'eooo
7IIill&:I~'ì:i: =
~ '~hl ill' "It!
§IIII,..: ,iii iii
~~¡ I~I~II!I:
!d~1 i~ :11
il~i i~ I ¡
II L I II ! !
; ~il~i'
; Ilil~1
I ! I ·
Iii II & i IJ~'
¡¡III! ~'I!jl!
1111 I'I J !(I~
1II@lt!:;.1
11.- & J IiIh
i III.' e IIII~
! I,ii i !II
¡ ! II ;d
: i ! Ii!
pI!
8 *',
;1
EXHIBIT B
'" ED,,, H
-
2649 N. FEDERAL HWY
I "5PH'-l T PA\ÐoEHT .
~~--ê~\\-li:!-- (Uiìr;~~.~~. ~ ~~~ rg~J[&lIJld:l ~J Jái1
~ j \\ /. -~- --_ _~'~ r~~ L:~ L:~~~
r- .'I \\ / 1 - -- /
~ ~~':'r~ ~~~~, ..
1::.. ',~ i¡IJ'~, ,. +
" if"! ~~~JÕ J/ / +, ~~~I L 111
~I~~ n -J- ~ _ _ \ ;;: _~.. _ :.../: I .,::;:
''' f___ ~___ ~ ~ :.u ~ "":.~ ....... .... Q
", J' I :.}~~~~ ~ ~(T, ~
¡¡~ L '. -. ;f~ ~ ~ J/ r- ~/"/~
, I ",I ê~r~ I---{
~~~~ I.() !! i);~¡. ~!'~Hþt--------- --.1.- r; ŒiJ
~~~~/ ¡~ i! .. ~ 0. " .... '" Î0 V
v,, ( ~ ~~ I I I "\"Y,.,.'. \ "'I
~"---h I II III '_'. \ j) ~
II.., II I ".....(
~ Þ : IV /~~,.-1~~ ;y; -- --~~~~i'~~~~(~ ~
I I I PI¡¡¡ I Jill'
I I 'r---.... t-- > / I / '
I I I I... ¡,.l.. ~ - 1---« ~~.¡,"
~ Ii \, "'~;:~~~N 1,,\..[\
~~' ~ ¡ \\\I'jJ~~ m__________ =J~i ~ ŒiJ
~ \ ÐAI"~V -~~ ~ -C~~ ~
~~~ ~~ ',~~ {iTl,f'J'-" $~ 1¡}J ~
'i ~ ~ 1~ \ . n \ \ j bL l = t;p.w'"
I 11~11 ., 1"7"~
I r'1£ ! I:. Á. "> .1.: r fì\ (yyq~'> ~ .¿
---+ '1/: ~l:1 I",,~~. · '1 .4 ~ ~ 11 E[
(r\ I J In... ~-~"""<:I LI ~;.-'
I) I ..( lþ 1_. 'f ~I " r ~ <f /t,
) I ! ¡ ~ e!ìì/~ i~~/"~~ ~
I I ~I ~ ~ ..r-'~~ \ /1/
I 'f'1 ~ ---(
( " !' ! I~~'~~-'~ L~---------- C'4t 2J1
¡ 11 ~~, \,;~ J \,~ ~e' .
.___.1 !:LL_. lii î' ",n~ 1::t:·.:::::::.:: ..__J. D_R~
f LJ tdSS ~HJj1
THE PENINSULA
PREPARED FOR WATERBROOK COMMUNITIES
-
! II! III ¡Hi ~ ~
~ ~~! Ir ~ I i ~
LAND.
DESIGN
SOUTH
la1docape I\lchIIec:1ue I land PIamIng
&1'I;ronmental Consultation
BOYNTON BEACH. FLORIDA
~
~ I II I I I
~I-II Id! r ~~l \ I 'I~: I~i (/ Y
~¡!I,I.r,I!I: I' ''i::¡~~ ê "'N '--1
il.- I - ': : ~
1¡I~i !~ II! ~m1 : ~i ii~ i~\~Þ
:1111 II ~ i Y ~)~ / ~ It~:. -i=t--------- ~ \
I I § 5 ~ \.. IAJ~ ~~.' ~ 'f:::¡:, ¡4i\
; ~ilii'
I Ii' ~ I-
ill 1~/t~.~.'1!~ ~ ~
Iii III illl~i S~ ') I, f< -( - r:: I. î 1. j '(. ~ ~~1111 ~ JL;p' ;r!_.
iill! h! Î!: J JL~I ~ /' (.J C:~J I all a~ll _ ~ I :I~~L::F.: i; l... . a~ :, [¡; ~
1- 1'1-' !l1~ ~ 11"V' íL l... :"~ >-' I II~~ ~ I ~J '¡: :\-
-!II! : 1·1 ~ (~ :¡ I r I ~ r I: ~~ 1:1 JI~:.... ~II '( I)'
II !:¡ II:!I ~i~ ~ ~/~ ~- ~
'I'a - ~ II ^' '\ ~I 'V - / I ~ ~ 'I. ' r J ^
! 111;11 !!I ~ ì 11 : [}. ·~t· .~¡- ~ \J)t ) ~:~;
I III _Ii ~ [m <=1" e~
; ~ i I ;;1 ~!~ ì ~I .">. b~~\ ~>.A-\ j ),
III Iii -1 I ~ lJ ~ "-V ~ ~ L., ~ rliì
. I :111 ~8io: ~I: ~ <C1J! ! :II~~ ! ! itil ) Y
s S.. ~~~~ I "f:: r: I rl:~ lS I I l::" - ~
~ 'i ~ ~ " ~~ ~ (o~ ¡ r.; ~ '.ù ¡ (oj¡] ,) ~
I I "' '--:::: .11 . I 0 jJ
~I I ~::I_' IC ~ ~'_ _
'f-' 11) 'm-E I ït ~
~ ~ / '-Ð~ J ~o ~~r':~~i : ~~ L::~ l ..) ~
L J- "-t (.I;:' I I PI¡=¡¡ I I ~ ~
~ \'-...j/J I I I> I I __
)1: ~/! @/G ¡ ~~! ~~ " \
.' ,.+-llf".-h, '(~ 'î'ctk , ~
EXHIBIT B
Edl 33S 3NIlH)1 VW
I II! III ~Hi ~ S;
. ¡'Sf ZZ
~ ,~! r fl ¡ ~
~-. y E~)'l- (~
THE PENINSULA
PREPARED FOR WATERBROOK COMMUNITIES
LAND.
DESIGN
SOUTH
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
Londscape Archltect\Je I land PIomIng
EnYironmena Consuladon
I II! III H~~ "us:
· ~J8I~Z
~ ,~! Ir rl ¡ ~
-tt I I I I I I I
uJ~ III ¡U~ i: I~
~ I~hl ¡'III 'It!
lilllE liE IE: III
I~¡ I~I !gl!l:
!d~1 i~ =¡I
il~! i~ ! ¡
III! II I ! I
I :il~il
¡ IIII~I
1'1 ·
II~ Ii I ~ II:'
¡¡III! ~ il!
,- Iha¡ I~
_!II!Ø : ;.¡
!I !;¡ I ~';
¡ I~i 'Iii
! III' !-il
II. I III
ai·I-!
I pll
s .111
i~
~
EXHIBIT B
MATCHLlNE SEE LP2
___ I
tdl 33S 3NIlH:>lVW
,,-')
r:;, u ~-- ~+ ~.
Dl~
THE PENINSULA
PREPARED FOR WATERBROOK COMMUNITIES
LAND.
DESIGN
SOUTH
l.and&cape Nct'IIectue I Land PIamIng
Environmental CoNultacion
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
~
J~ill i i~i:l~
~hllll;l, t!·- -- - - -
!lllrI:~:lal ~ i
!'I~I~el!l: ã~~
III-I -.1 :1. I
'If! I~ II' ¡
IIIII! P I
d pll
lal~1
III'
I II! II' H~i c):
. ;'S{ ZZ
~ ~J! I r rl! ~
IIIII '-'+'
Ii~ illlll~'U
¡ill~l~ il!iI
I-I'ia; ~1~iI!
_@IIR èI 1.15;
II Ii & - ~ I
; -~ I II!; :
II GIG ¡ ¡ ;111
Ii, I ~aa i
iI II III!
; I I 1,1 I
~; 1&1;
I ¡ :!i ;
I 1'1
;~
EXHIBIT 8
MA TCHUNE SEE LP3
--- ------- 0 -
.
~
~
¡Ç) 1 r~) 1<'-- (\(
THE PENINSULA
PREPARED FOR WATERBROOK COMMUNITIES
LAND.
DESIGN
SOUTH
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
I.ondscope AI<:I1Itectue I Land PIamIng
EnYironmenaJ Consultation
()
þ:1
III
I..
I··
"
I II! III ~l!i ~
· Il8f ~
;Ii ~~! If r! ¡ ~
EXHIBIT B
· i I
fil !!
'11'iJ ¡
I· ..' ~¡ !
f . ~1 !
w
þ:1
1.1
I,.
I··
"
en
m
(')
-
õ
z
:Þ
,
~
1.1
I,.
I··
"
-----
==-~
I
Ii
12
~I
I,
:¡
!2
I
~4 S'i- K
THE PENINSULA
PREPARED FOR W A TERBROOK COMMUNITIES
()
1.1 »
I,.
I;:
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
7'
"'
IO
IS
LAND.
DESIGN
SOUTH
landscope ArcHI8ctue !land PI<rnIng
EnYironmena Comukadon
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Peninsula
File number: NWSP 05-013
Reference: 2nd review plans identified as a New Site Plan with a Mav 17. 2005 Planning and Zoning
Department date stamp marking.
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS - General
Comments: None
PUBLIC WORKS - Traffic
Comments:
1. On the Site and Civil plans, show and identify all necessary traffic control
devices such as stop bars, stop signs, double yellow lane separators striping,
directional arrows and "Do Not Enter" signage, etc. See City Standard
Drawings "K" Series for striping details.
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
1. Provide written and graphic scales on all sheets. The scale should match
between all sheets depicting the site (LDR, Chapter 4, Section 7.B.l, 7.C.l,
and 7.F.1.)
2. Complete Drainage plans, including drainage calculations, in accordance with
the LDR, Chapter 6, Article IV, Section 5 will be required at the time of .
pennitting.
3. Paving, Drainage and Site details will not be reviewed for construction
acceptabìlìty at this time. All engineering construction details shall be in
accordance with the applicable City of Boynton Beach Standard Drawings
and the "Engineering Design Handbook and Construction Standards"
and will be reviewed at the time of construction pennit application.
UTILITIES
Comments:
4. The applicant will be required to evaluate area systems to determine if
sufficient capacity for both utìlìty service systems is available for this project,
prior to receiving any conceptual approva.~ by theYÊ.~es ~artment for this
submittal. ~' J I .c. .
I
5. Palm Beach County Health Department pennits will be required for the water
and sewer systems serving this project (CODE, Section 26-12).
COA.doc
06/02/05
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
6. The CODE, Section 26-34(E) requires that a capacity reservation fee be paid
for this project either upon the request for the Department's signature on the
Health Department application forms or within seven (7) days of site plan
approval, whichever occurs first. This fee will be detennined based upon
final meter size, or expected demand.
7. Comprehensive Plan Policy 3.C.3.4. requires the conservation of potable
water. However due to the proximity of this project to the Intracoastal
Waterway potable water may be allowed for irri~ation.
8. A building pennit for this project shall not be issued until this Department has
approved the plans for the water and/or sewer improvements required to
service this project, in accordance with the CODE, Section 26-15.
FIRE
Comments:
9. All entrance gates subject to locking shall have a knox lock system that will
-override any gate codes. All entrance gates and roads shall be a minimum of
20' feet wide if two wav traffic and 12 feet wide if they are one way.
10. The construction site road shall be compacted to withstand 32 tons prior to
going vertical in any portion of the project. The roads shall be maintained
tree of building equipment and debris at all times. Failure to do so will result
in the site bein~ closed until the situation is corrected.
11. All required fire hydrants. standpipes or sprinkler systems shall be in place
before going vertical. Vertical construction shall be protected by standpipes
and sprinkler systems to one floor below the hi~hest level of construction.
12. Any building, no matter what its use, that exceeds 30 feet shall be fitted with
an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.
13. The angle of the entrance and the stability of the roads will be tested by Fire
Department vehicles. If they cannot negotiate the entrance or become stuck,
the project will be shut down until the situation is rectified. These inspections
occur throughout the time of construction. Any towing expenses or vehicle
damage expenses due to the failure of the ground will be passed on to the
contractor.
POLICE
Comments: ^Lf~ ~-t 'T
BUILDING DIVISION
COA.doc
06/02/05
3
DEP ARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
Comments:
14. Place a note on the elevation view drawings indicating that the exterior wall
openings and exterior wall construction comply with 2001 FBC, Table 600.
Submit calculations that clearly reflect the percentage of protected and
unprotected wall openings permitted per 2001 FBC, Table 600.
15. Every exterior wall within 15 feet of a property line shall be equipped with
approved openinll Pfotectives per 2001 FBC, Section 705.1.1.2.
16. Buildings three-stories or higher shall be equipped with an automatic
sprinkler system per F.S. 553.895. Fire protection plans and hydraulic
calculations shall be included with the building plans at the time of permit
application.
17. At time of permit review, submit signed and sealed working drawings of the
proposed construction.
18. Add a labeled symbol to the site plan drawing that identifies the location of
the handicap accessible parking spaces. The quantity of the spaces shall be
consistent with the regulations specified in the 2001 FBC. The accessible
parking spaces that serve a use shall be located on the shortest safety
accessible route of travel from adjacent parking to an accessible entrance. The
2001 FBC states that buildings with multiple accessible entrances shall have
accessible parking spaces dispersed and located closest to the accessible
entrance. 2001 FBC, Sections 11-4.1.2(5), 4.3, and 4.6.
19. At the time of permit review, submit details of reinforcement of walls for the
future installation of grab bars as required by the Federal Fair Housing Act
Title 24 CFR, Part 100.205, Section 3, Requirement #6. All bathrooms within
the covered dwellinll unit shall comply.
20. To properly determine the impact fees that will be assessed for the one-story
pool/clubhouse/recreation building, provide the following:
a.Will the pool/clubhouse/recreation building be restricted to the residents of
the entire project only?
b. Will the residents have to cross any major roads or thoroughfares to get to
the pool/clubhouse/recreation building?
c. Will there be any additional deliveries to the site?
d. Will there be any additional employees to maintain and provide service to
the site?
Please have the applicant provide the City with a copy of the letter that will be
sent to the impact fee coordinator. To allow for an efficient permit
review, the applicant should request that the County send the City a copy
of their determination of what impact fees are required for the
pool/clubhouse/recreation buildinll. 7 Li ~·\-l \... )..
I
COA.doc
06/02/05
4
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
21. CBBCPP 3.C.3.4 requires the conservation of potable water. City water may
not, therefore, be used for landscape irrigation where other sources are readily
available.
22. A water-use permit fÌom SFWMD is required for an irrigation system that
utilizes water fÌom a well or body of water as its source. A copy of the permit
shall be submitted at the time of permit application, F.S. 373.216.
23. If capital facility fees (water and sewer) are paid in advance to the City of
Boynton Beach Utilities Department, the following infonnation shall be
provided at the time of building permit application:
a. The full name of the project as it appears on the Development Order and
the Commission-approved site plan.
b. If the project is a multi-family project, the building numbers must be
provided. The building numbers must be the same as noted on the
Commission-approved site plans.
c. The number of dwelling units in each building.
d. The number of bedrooms in each dwelling unit.
e. The total amount paid and itemized into how much is for water and how
much is for sewer.
(CBBCO, Chapter 26, Article II, Sections 26-34)
24. At time of permit review, submit separate surveys of each lot. parcel or tract.
For purposes of setting up property and ownership in the City computer,
provide a copy of the recorded deed for each lot, parcel or tract. The recorded
deed shall be submitted at time of permit review.
25. At time of building permit application, submit verification that the City of
Boynton Beach Parks and Recreation Impact Fee requirements have been
satisfied by a paid fee or conveyance of property. The following infonnation
shall be provided:
a. A legal description of the land.
b. The full name of the project as it appears on the Development Order and
the Commission-approved site plan.
c. If the project is a multi-family project, the building numbers must be
provided. The building numbers must be the same as noted on the
Commission-approved site plans.
d. The number of dwelling units in each building.
e. The total amount being paid.
(CBBCO, Chapter 1, Article V, Section 3(f))
26. Pursuant to approval by the City Com!ss~n ~d ~r o~ outside agencies,
the plans for this project must be submitted to the Building Division for
review at the time of permit application submittal. The plans must incorporate
all the conditions of approval as listed in the development order and approved
COA.doc
06/02/05
5
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
by the City Commission.
27. The full address of the project shall be submitted with the construction
documents at the time of permit application submittal. If the project is multi-
family, then all addresses for the particular building type shall be submitted.
The name of the project as it appears on the Development Order must be
noted on the building permit application at the time of application submittal
28. Building #7 meets the definition of a threshold building per F.S. 553.71(7)
and shall comply with the requirements of F.S. 553.79 and the CBBA to the
2001 FBC. Sections 105.3.1 through 105.3.6.
The following information must be submitted at the time of permit
application:
a. The structural inspection plan must be submitted to the enforcing agency
prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a
threshold building.
b. All shoring and re-shoring procedures, plans and details shall be
submitted.
c. All plans for the building that are required to be signed and sealed by the
architect or engineers of record shall contain a statement that, to the best
of the architect's or engineer's knowledge, the plans and specifications
comply with the applicable fire safety standards as determined by the
local authority in accordance with this section and F.S. Section 633.
29. Clearly show the distance between the buildings.
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments:
30. Impact fee calculation as follows:
30 townhouses @ $771.00 each = $23,130.00
40 condominiums @ 656.00 each = 26.240.00
Total $49,370.00
The fee is due prior to the issuance of the first applicable permit.
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments:
31. Boundarv Survey sheet Existing Trees Management Pla\fJ
<64Srl-- .
The Landscape Architect should indicate and tabulate the total number of
existing trees on the site. The tabular data should show the individual
COA.doc
06/02/05
6
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
species of trees proposed to remain in place, be relocated throughout the site,
or removed / replaced on site. All desirable species of existing trees must be
relocated rather than removed if the trees are in good health. These trees
should be shown by a separate symbol on the landscape plan sheet
LP5Environmental Regulations, Chapter 7.5, Article I Sec. 7.D.p. 2.]
32. The applicant should add a note indicating that all utility boxes or structures
(not currently known or shown on the plan) should be screened with Coco
plum hedge plants on three sides.
33. Irrigation Plan-No Irrigation plan included in the submittal
The irrigation system design (not included in the plans) should be low volume
water conservation using non-portable water.
34. Turf and landscape (bedding plants) areas should be designed on separate
zones and time duration for water conservation.
35. Trees should have separate irrigation bubblers to provide water directly to the
root ball. rEnvironmental Regulations Chap. 7.5 Art.llSec.5.C.2.]
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
36. Approval of this site plan is contingent upon the accompanying request for
land use / rezoning application (LUAR 05-004). Include a note regarding
LUAR 05-004 on the overall site plan tabular data (sheet AI).
37. The Palm Beach County Traffic Division determined that the proposed
residential project is located in the county designated Coastal Residential
Exception areas, and therefore meets the traffic performance standards of
Palm Beach County. No building permits are to be issued by the City, after
the build-out date (2007) unless the traffic statement is updated and
subsequently approved by the Traffic Division.
38. All new docks would require approval from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. If an IPUD is located with frontage on the Intracoastal Waterway,
conditions of approval shall include a deed restriction requiring that any
marina or dockage built will not exceed in width, the boundaries of the
project's actual frontage on the water, regardless of what any other governing
or permitting entity may allow or permit (Chapter 2, Section 5.L.4.g.(3)).
[ 'S(_t~L
39. Include a color rendering of all elevatio· s 'äI. the Community Redevelopment
Agency Board meeting scheduled for June 9,2005. at the Technical Review
Committee meeting (Chapter 4. Section 7.D.). This will be on display at the
public meeting.
COA.doc
06/02/05
7
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
40. On the landscape plan, ensure that the plant quantities match between the
tabular data and the graphic illustration.
41. The trees proposed around the townhouse and condominium buildings must
be installed at ~ the building height of the building (Chapter 7.5, Article II,
Section S.M.).
42. At the time of permitting, provide proof of title to all lands proposed to be
developed as part of this submittal.
43. At the time of permitting, incorporate a sidewalk into the design that would
lead pedestrians from the townhouses to the sidewalk that exists within the
Federal Highway right-of-way.
44. Staff recommends increasing the setback of the wall / fence, proposed along
the west property line, from three (3) feet to seven (7) feet in order to
accommodate additional shrubs and groundcover. Staff also recommends
increasing the height (from 12 feet to 16 feet) of the four (4) Foxtail palm
trees proposed at the front entrance. Finally, staff recommends increasing the
height of the three (3) Cabbage palm trees proposed just west of the
westernmost townhouse building, from 12 feet to 18 feet in height at the time
of installation.
45. Staff recommends that the plant material proposed within the south landscape
buffer be installed in such a way as to provide immediate buffering. This can
be accomplished by installing all proposed trees at their maximum height
(within their specified range of heights) without jeopardizing the visual
buffering of lower-to-mid-Ievel screening above the wall and inserting
additional palm trees within the south landscape buffer in areas where tip-to-
tip spacing is not entirely accomplished.
46. The site address is required on the sign.
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
COMMENTS:
Comments:
47. To be determined.
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Comments:
48. To be determined. !~' 1 S ...=t- Y'/-
'-
MWR/e1]
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\Peninsula @ Boynton Beach\NWSP 05-013\COA.doc
DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME:
Peninsula at Boynton Beach
AGENT:
Ms. Kimberly Glas-Castro and Ms. Bonnie Miskell Ruden McClosky
AGENTS ADDRESS:
222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 800 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6112
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION:
July 5, 2005
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request new site plan approval to construct 30 fee-simple townhouse
units and 40 condominium units on 3.51 acres in the IPUD zoning
district.
LOCATION OF PROPERTY: On the east side of U.S. 1, approximately 1,600 feet north of Gateway
Boulevard
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO.
THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the
findings and recommendation of the Community Redevelopment Agency Board, which Board found
as follows:
OR
THIS MATTER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows:
1 . Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistent with
the requirements of the City's Land Development Regulations.
2. The Applicant
HAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
3. The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
suggested by the public and supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included".
4. The Applicant's application for relief is hereby
_ GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
DENIED
5. This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
6. All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the terms
and conditions of this order.
7.
Other
<7 1: c: -:L "7
o "JÎ .t-~
DATED:
City Clerk
S:lPlanningISHARI!D\WPIPROJEITSlPeninsula @ Boynton BeachINWSP OS-013\DO.doc
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DMSION
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 05-082
TO:
FROM
Mayor and aty commiSSio~
Dick Hudson, AICP It.~
Senior Planner ~
Michael W. Rumpf N,
Director of Planning and Zoning
THROUGH:
DATE:
May 17, 2005
SUBJECT:
Commercial Uses in Planned Unit Developments (PUDs)
CDRV 05-011
NATURE OF REOUEST
Staff is proposing an amendment to the Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2.5 Planned
Unit Development, Section 9.0. Commercial Standards, to allow for commercial uses in PUDs to
front on exterior or perimeter streets, when such locations are consistent with adopted
redevelopment policies and plans.
BACKGROUND
The PUD regulations, found in Chapter 2.5 of the Land Development Regulations were adopted
primarily to provide a more creative form of residential development other than what strict
subdivision regulations require in single-family residential zoning district regulations. In the City,
the majority of approved PUDs are located west of 1-95, with only 4 developments of this type
located east of the interstate.
The current regulations permit a limited amount of neighborhood commercial acreage within the
residential development, but require that the areas designated for commercial activities not front
on exterior or perimeter streets and preferably are located centrally within the project.
The IPUD Infill Planned Unit Development regulations were developed for application on small
projects (one to five acres) located in redevelopment areas in the Federal Highway Corridor. The
traditional PUD regulations have a minimum parcel size of five acres and are currently being
utilized for infill and redevelopment projects. There are locations in the redevelopment area
eligible for redevelopment where the inclusion of commercial uses, particularly fronting on
Federal Highway and other primary roadways, would be consistent with, and further the intent
of, adopted redevelopment plans; however the regulations cited above preclude that option.
Whereas the Mixed use Low and Mixed use High zoning districts were established to gUide
redevelopment within redevelopment areas #2 through #4, residential uses are primarily
accommodated within areas #1 and #5 through the new IPUD zoning district. Given the limited
areas fit for sizeable mixed use projects within areas #1 and #5, and the surge in demand for
residential uses within the city, there has not been evidence of the need for such a mixed use
district within the entrance areas to the city, along Federal Highway. However, there may be a
few locations within these areas that are marketable for mixed use project, such as the
Gulfstream Mall. The Federal Highway Corridor Redevelopment Plan did not encourage nor
'6'L1 -_S -8
Page 2
CDRV 05-011
Commercial Uses in PUDs
discourage "mixed uses" with Areas #1 and #5, but only recommended that these areas be
limited to lower building heights and densities relative to areas #2 and #4. Given the limited
possible sites ideal for a mixture of residential-commercial uses (within areas #1 and #5), and
flexibility allowed by the PUD zoning district, staff recommends consideration of the subject
amendment rather than establishment of a new zoning district to accommodate mixed-use
projects within the areas described above.
ANALYSIS
A survey of Land Development Regulations for municipalities in Palm Beach County show that
similar restrictions exist In a majority of them. The reason generally stated is "to prevent strip
shopping centers from developing along roadway frontages" in the suburban areas. Staff
concurs that In suburban areas these regulations on commercial uses should remain in place.
However, when the PUD zoning district is used in the redevelopment areas where commercial
development along street frontages exists; where adopted plans encourage redevelopment of
commercial areas; and where the commercial development can be well-integrated with the
residential uses, then the regulations should be relaxed.
There are several limited areas along the Federal Corridor that are not eligible for rezoning to
the adopted mixed-use zoning district regulations that could benefit from the proposed
amendments to the code. These are areas where nodes of commercial development exist that
provide retail and services to established neighborhoods, and where a strictly residential
development might be considered incompatible. By utilizing the PUD review process, the
integration of commercial uses can be controlled to ensure internal and external compatibility.
Staff proposes that the following amendments (shown as underlined text) to the Land
Development Regulations to achieve the desired results:
D. COMMERCIAL STANDARDS. Commercial uses located in a PUD are intended
to serve the needs of the PUD and not the general needs of a surrounding area. The
maximum area within a PUD which may be devoted to neighborhood commercial uses,
including required off-street parking requirements, is governed by Table 1, Section 4 and
Section 9C. Areas designated for commercial activities shall not generally front on
exterior or perimeter streets, and shall be preferably centrally located within the project
unless these criteria would be inconsistent with. or contrary to. adopted redevelopment
plans. In instances where a PUD in the redevelopment area includes commercial uses. it
shall be developed consistent with adopted design guidelines or requirements contained
in redevelopment plans.
RECOMMENDATION
It is staff's opinion that the proposed amendments to the Planned Unit Development regulations
are the minimum necessary to achieve the desired results, given the limited properties within
areas #1 and #5 where such mixed use projects are likely to be developed; therefore staff
recommends that the proposed amendments be carried forward to the Community
Redevelopment Agency Board for their review and comments.
Exhibits
S:\plANNING\SHARED\WP\SPECPROJ\COOE REV1EW\CDRV ~ COMMERCJAL IN PUDS\COMMERCJAL IN PUDS STAFf REPORT.DOC
<i5' q sE~ ~
VII. Pulled Consent Agenda Items
8459
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
VIII. Old Business
8460
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting wiJl need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shaJl furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
IX. New Business
8461
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
x. Commission Action
8462
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
XI. Director Report
8463
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
MEMO
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
CRA Board
Douglas Hutchinson
June 2, 2005
Directors Report
· Building The Vision: Presentation of Draft Document for
Consideration of Adoption. DH
· Way-Finding Signage Program - Guidance Pathways Systems is
providina the corrected permit application packaaes to be re-
submitted to the County and State. NM
· Design Guidelines Overlays - The document has been given back to
RMPK Group for their next revision. We are now working with City Staff to
move through the Mixed-Use issue. The project is about 80%
complete. The taraet dates are for workshop in July. CRA Board in
Auaust, the City in September. DH
· Unified Update CRA Plan: Staff is working with RMPK to complete this
comprehensive document. The plan has had significant revisions for
content, style, graphics, etc. The project is about 85% completed. The
project is about 80% complete. The taraet dates are for workshop in
July. CRA Board in Auaust. the City in September. DH
· Land Development Regulation (LDR) - Re-write of LDR's will be done
by the City Planning Staff and the CRA. The project is about 25%
complete. The project is about 80% complete. The tarQet dates are
for workshop in July. CRA Board in AUQust, the City in September.
DH
· Community Real Estate Trust - Draft articles and By-Laws are beina
reviewed for presentation to steerina committee. DH
· Manarove Purchase - Survey complete. Appraiser selected. Appraisal
to complete in 2-3 weeks. DH
· Marina Purchase - Survey complete. Appraiser selected. Appraisal to be
complete in 2-3 weeks. DH
8464
Annette's Shares L:\Monthly Directors Reports\2005\Directors Monthly Status Report June Meetings.doc
· St. Paul AME (MLK Phase II Redevelopment) - Closed on one of three
properties, 308 NE 10th Street. This property is proposed to be leased
back to the Church for $1 their use. A trade agreement and lease have
been drafted and are being reviewed. VB
· Savage Creatures Team - Site permits and project design issues
concepts are being further assessed on key elements issues. The project
is being prepared for presentation for Concept Approval for August 2005
Workshop. DH
· Trolley System Operation Rollout - Bovnton Sign Companv is
moving forward with the signs. The City of Boynton Beach has agreed
to install our signs when they are finished. Staff is meeting with the Kidd
Group for the Trolley Marketing Implementation. NM
· Genesis Business Program - Staff has successfullv negotiated a
final agreement with SCORE to come on board as a partner of the
program. The organization now supplies 8 of the 11 mentors in the
program. Score will be a great asset to the program because of their
continuous data base of volunteers and the significant amount of
experience that the volunteers have in multiple business industries,
The roundtable discussions continue to be very positive and
productive. The group is currentlv exploring creative marketing and
advertising campaigns. AG.
· Grants Update
Self-Assemblv- SEBOF will execute MOU in June. VB
· Police Activity Report- Please find attached. NM.
· Web Site Activity Report- Mav's report is attached. AG.
· Newsletter - The Second quarter newsletter will be published on June
16. 2005. AG.
· Annual Report - The 2003/2004 Annual report is in development
stages. Staff has obtained 3 quotes for design lavout, printing and
mailing. In addition, each staff member is working on a draft of the
content for the report. Finallv. The photographv projects has been
completed. Staff is in currentlv working on a labeling and cataloging
svstem AG.
8465
Annette's Shares L:\Monthly Directors Reports\2005\Directors Monthly Status Report June Meetings.doc
· Events
Proposed Dates for 2005 events:
June
10th Movies on the A venue Mad, Mad, Mad, World Rated G
July
8th Movies on the Avenue Around the World in 80 days Rated G
September
22nd CRA Development Fair
October
28th CRA State of the CRA
December
4th Winter Carnival
8466
Annette's Shares L:\Monthly Directors Reports\2005\Directors Monthly Status Report June Meetings.doc
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Lisa Lillie, DATE:
Special Services
Adiministrative Sergeant
June 3. 2005
FILE:
FROM:
Ronald Davis, Police
Officer, e.RA. Unit
SUBJECT: C.RA. Unit Monthly for May 2005
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES:
C.R.A. Unit Monthly- May 2005
Heart of Bovnton
· The Heart of Boynton Officers assisted road patrol with a variety of calls within this area. .
· The Heart of Boynton Officers had 54 traffic contacts which consisted of several citations, warnings
and arrests.
· The officers continued to meet with the business owners and talk with citizens who live in the area.
Residents have expressed concern about the increase in narcotics activity. Residents are also concerned
about how long the demolition of Boynton Terrace is taking.
· The demolition of Boynton Terrace has finally begun.
· Officers are also coordinating with road patrol to prevent increased narcotics activity at Boynton
Terrace, and other locations.
· Officers are also conducting increased patrols in the area around St Marks School and the adjacent
parks in reference to a subject who has exposed himselfto the children.
· Officers completed the police cyclist course at BCe.
Central Business District
· The Central Business District Officers assisted road patrol with a variety calls for service within this
area.
· Ofc. Danysh completed several Police Explorers meetings and functions, as well as instructing at
several events. He is also preparing the Explorers for their upcoming State competition.
· The officers continued to enforce traffic laws within this area. This led to 117 traffic contacts, resulting
in several citations, warnings, and traffic arrests.
Upcoming activities- June 2005
· The Heart of Boynton Officers will continue to monitor the Boynton Terrace facility as the demolition
effort continues.
· The Central Business District Officers will be continuing to enforce traffic laws within the area.
· Officers will continue to be very visible within C.RA. areas. This will include a large amount of bike
patrol to allow for more direct interaction with members of the business community, and general
public.
~~Co~
·
Date:
6-3-05
Completing Officer:
Vehicle #
Vehicle #
4501
4502
R. DAVIS 796
CRA UNIT MONTHLY
Beginning Mileage:
Beginning Mileage:
Alarms:
Suspicious Person:
Suspicious Vehicle:
Stolen Vehicle:
Assault:
Narcotic Related:
Parking Citations:
Total Traffic Contacts:
Community Service:
Business Owner Visits:
Citizen Interactions:
Referrals Total:
Other Departments:
Other Information:
3
171
564
1251
36
City: 14
CRA: 21
Other:
4833
4264
Police Assists:
Other:
Civil Assist:
Abandoned Vehicle:
Recovered Vehicle:
Vandalism:
Citations:
AAR's:
Crashes:
Total Community Meetings:
Attended:
Organized:
Other Contacts:
Explain:
7
5
47
..
...... .
MonthlY ear: MAY 2005
Mileage Total: 6105
Mileage Total: 5498
Total Arrests: 4
Other Thefts:
Total Hours Worked: 707.5
Total Hours (vac/comp/personal/auth leave): 72
Reports:
Burglary:
Other Recovered Property:
Weapons Related:
Vehicle Towed:
Battery:
Domestic Violence:
2
Warnings:
PAR's:
123
Disturbance:
Ofc Danysh completed several Explorer functions.
All four officers attended the police cyclist course at BCC.
Aggressive bicycle patrol of the zones has begun.
Numerous extra patrols are being conducted at selected problem areas.
cy. y ~'~ J\-,
..
:,~.)
CRA OFFICER MONTHLY
MonthlYear: MAY 05
ID#: 606 Call Sign: C31
I.C. Test #1: DONE I.C. Test #2: DONE
Date: 6-1-05
Officer: F. DANYSH
PLI Completion Date: DONE
# Hours Worked:
185
# Hours VacationlComp/PersonalJAuth Leave: 23
Total Reports Taken: 0
Mileage: 202
# of Arrests: 0
Case # MO
Case # MO
Case # MO
Citizen Contacts (no Case #)
Business Owner Visits: 200
Citizen Interactions: 300
Referrals Total: 8
Other Departments: City: 2
CRA: 5
Other:
PAR's
AAR's
Total Traffic Contacts: 4
Citations:
Total Community Meetings:
Warnings:
4
Attended:
Parking Citations:
Organized:
Other Contacts:
Explain:
Other Comments: Conducted Explorer training. Perfonned aggressive bike patrol in patrol areas. Assisted road
patrol with calls for service. Attended police cyclist course.
S'L\ k,t'1S
·......'.....'..................
... . ....
~
. .
CRA OFFICER MONTHLY
Date: 05-28-05
MonthlYear: MA Y'05
ID#: 793 Call Sign: C32
I.C. Test #1: 5-09-05 I.C. Test #2: 5-24-05
Officer: REYNOLDS
PLI Completion Date: 5-4-05
# Hours Worked: 185.0
Total Reports Taken: 4
Case # MO
05-022961 DOTA
05-026521 LPRA
05-027313 SPIA
05-027340 VNRC
# Hours Vacation/Comp/Personal/Auth Leave: 23.0
Mileage: 403
# of Arrests: 2
Case #
MO
Case #
MO
Citizen Contacts (no Case #)
Business Owner Visits:
132
PAR's
383
AAR's
Citizen Interactions:
Referrals Total:
6
Other Departments:
City:
6
CRA:
Total Traffic Contacts: 113
Other:
Citations: 35
Total Community Meetings:
Warnings: 78
Attended:
Parking Citations:
Organized:
Other Contacts:
Explain: A TIENDED ONE WEEK IPMBA BIKE SCHOOL AT BCC.
Other Comments: CONSTANT EXTRA PATROLS AT 211 S FEDERAL, BANANA BOAT BRIDGE, BOAT
DOCKS, OCEAN PLAZA, ALL BUSINESS ON E. OCEAN A VENUE. KIDS KINGDOME,
THE LIBRARY, CIVIC CENTER, ARTS CENTER, BUSINESS ON SOUTHS IDE OF E SR
804, BOYNTON PLAZA EAST, OCEAN PLAZA, MANGROVE PARK AND 600 N. FED
c¿;. L\ L~ C\ (~
....,
, -~.. '
\~)
CRA OFFICER MONTHLY
Date: 6-1-05
PLI Completion Date: DONE
MonthlY ear: MAY 05
10#: 796 Call Sign: C33
I.C. Test #1: DONE I.c. Test #2: DONE
Officer: R. DAVIS
# Hours Worked: 152.5
Total Reports Taken: 2
Case # MO
05-22779 PASZ
05-26938 AGAB
# Hours Vacation/Comp/PersonaVAuth Leave:
Mileage: 329
# of Arrests: 0
Case # MO
Case # MO
Citizen Contacts (no Case #)
Business Owner Visits: 98
Citizen Interactions: 270
Referrals Total: 16
Other Departments: City: 4
CRA: 12
Other:
PAR's
AAR's
Total Traffic Contacts: 13
Citations: 1-
Total Community Meetings:
Warnings:
12
Attended:
Parking Citations:
Organized:
Other Contacts:
Explain:
Numerous extra patrols within zone. Attended police cyclist school.
Other Comments:
~ 4 lc~C-
.
"'.···..d.' '...."...
", ,,'
.
CRA OFFICER MONTHLY
6-1-05
MonthlYear: MA Y 05
Date:
----
Officer: R. LA UTURE
lD#: 797
Call Sign: C34
PLI Completion Date: DONE
I.c. Test #1:
DONE
I.c. Test #2: DONE
# Hours Worked: 185
Total Reports Taken: 13
Case # MO
05-23913 SPPA
05-23931 PASF
05-23956 SPPA
05-24123 PASZ
05-24160 AGAB
05-24813 PASH
# Hours Vacation/ComplPersonal/Auth Leave: 23
Mileage: 125 # of Arrests: 2
Case # MO Case # MO
05-24832 PASF 05-26895 WARB
05-25000 PASZ
05-25001 PASF
05-26548 DDMA
05-26583 SOVC
05-26584 SOYA
Citizen Contacts (no Case #)
Business Owner Visits: 134
Citizen Interactions: 298
Referrals Total: 6
Other Departments: City: 2
CRA: 4
PAR's
AAR's
Total Traffic Contacts: 41
Other:
Citations:
11
Total Community Meetings:
Warnings:
29
Attended:
Parking Citations:
Organized:
Other Contacts:
Explain:
Aggressive bicycle patrol of zone. Attended police cyclist course. Numerous extra patrols of
parks and other selected areas within zone.
Other Comments:
s~ ÿ
(- - ~ \--~~\
\.(.. \
\'
\
01)
::::
'5£>
::::
.¡::;
...D
::::
0
~
>-,
""2
0
"'0
Il)
......
::::
;:
0
U
[fJ
..... VI
0 .r.
.-:= u'"
VJ CU c::
;;- O~
«
en >
...... C
C/J Z
;;-
Il) en
;: ...
0- il) u
'2 01) 0
ro
;: 0...
0 -a en
...... Il)
.5 ;: .5 c.
"'0 cu
..... .;;
0 ...... V'\
...... .- ..::::
. (/j "'0 u
.- :::: :.a
> ....... DoQ
-a :::: ::: ..1!
I) ......
;: Il)
"'0 ::: ro
:~ ...... "'0
I) ::::
"'0 ...D ro :>,
:::: C/J I) ~ "5
Il) ...... - ..,
...... ...... '(/j .-
~ ;: ~
...D .-
4-< .5 I) >
0 s ::: CI.Þ cu
ion c::
[fJ ..... = ::]
:::: 0 ;: 0 ~ ..,
0 ~ 0 0 .-
:::: >-, c
[fJ N ::::::>
[fJ ro 0
Il)":::: ...... :>,
..... ...... - ra
. . 0........ I) (II) :a
.5 I) "'0
Q.J 01) ro ~
........ :::: S
~...9 co
.- Il) ::E ...
~ ro 0 ..... . . ~
0...:::: ro QJ
[fJ ......
0 ~01) ...... ~ 0
0...:::: '(/j "C -
........ :f::.;;; ;;- ion ...
;: ro 0 ra
~ Il) 0 :a
S ...... ;: ......
........ "'0 0- :... 0
[fJ :::: ·2 N
.- Il) ro ~
~ N Il) C"-. ;: QJ
.¡::; I) .c
.- ro 01) E >-, ~ - cu
> S ro :::: I.L.
0... ro rI) ~
S - S ......
I) I) ..
;: :::: ...... rI) co
Q.J C/J 0 [fJ ::: .. ~ c::
= [fJ :::: :B 0 ~ ra
.- ro ..:::: s::::: ..,
0- C/J..:::: [fJ ::: QJ co
~...... I) ..,
(\j Il) 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.- :::: ..... "'0 :::: 0'" E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
= ro 0 ...... ~ 0 IZ\ 0 IZ\ 0 IZ\ 0 IZ\
S ro .. 0 V M M N N ... ...
[fJ ;: =
~ :.a 0... ~ 0 ;::¡ ~
:.- ;: >-- LL
8468
~
-
.-
~
.-
>
CÞ
::J
c-
.-
c
::;)
>. II)
~ 0
~ 0
.. N
0
"r""
..c M
......
C ~
0 CU
e :æ
Q.ì 0
..c -
......
:... II)
~ 0
0
r:r, N
......
.-
~ "r""
.-
> ~
CU
Q.ì :æ
= 0 0 0
0'" E LrI 0 LrI
.- N N ..--
C 0
~ ...
u.
8469
o
o
..--
o
Lr\
\,1
:>.
01\'1
nO
......
Lr\
o
co
N
......
LrI
o
-.0
N
......
LrI
o
'<:'"
N
......
LrI
o
N
N
......
LrI
o
o
N
......
LrI
o
co
..--
......
LrI
o
-.0
..--
......
Lr\
o
'<:'"
..--
......
Lr\
o
N
..-
......
Lr\
o
o
..--
......
LrI
o
co
o
......
LrI
o
-.0
o
......
Lr\
o
'<:'"
o
......
LrI
o
N
o
......
Lr\
o
o
1/1
-
.¡¡¡
:>
Q
::s ~ CD en ..- "
cr " N 0 N N
C "- It) It) CD en
;:) Ñ M Ñ N-
U)
0
0
N
- ~ ~
M oS: ('I
- ('I ::s .s:
c ::s ... (,) .¡: >-
>- c .c ...
0 ('I Q ('I c. ('I
ns :E ., II.. :¡: « :¡:
:!
0
--
U)
0
0
N
-
>- J!J
I.. '¡¡¡
ns :>
~
s:: C)
::s
ns cr
""') C
It) It) It) It) It) ;:)
E 0 0 0 0 0 "
0 0 0 0 0 It)
0 .!! !::! !::! !::! !::! !::! C')
I.. ('I ~ ..- ..- ..- ..- C')
u.. 0 Ñ M ~ iõ ..-
..-
8470
XII.
Board Member Comments
8471
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
XIII. Legal
8472
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disabiJity an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
XIV.
Other Items
8473
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
xv. Future Agenda Items
A. Consideration of the RFP for the Retail Demand Analysis (July).
B. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement with the City of Boynton Beach for the
Boynton Beach Boulevard Extension, Promenade and Riverwalk. (July).
C. Consideration of the Old High School Agreement (July).
D. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement between the CRA and the City for the MLK
Phase I Project (July).
E. Consideration of Interlocal Agreement between the CRA and the City of Boynton
Beach for Events and Festival services (TBD).
F. Consideration of Design Modification for Drainage Improvements on 4th Street.
(TBD).
G. Consideration of Workshop Meetings to be held in the CRA Conference Room
107 on the Following Dates:
1. Thursday. June 30th. 200S at 6:30 p.m. at 639 E. Ocean Ave. Suite 107
· Consideration of 2005-2006 Budget.
2. Thursday. July 21st. 200S at 6:30 p.m. at 639 E. Ocean Ave. Suite 107
· Consideration of 2005-2006 Budget.
· Consideration of CRA 2030 Plan, Design Guidelines and CRA Land
Development Regulations (LDR).
· Consideration of Human Resources Policy Recommendations.
3. Thursday. AUQust 18th. 200S at 6:30 p.m. at Holiday Inn - Catalina on
ConQress Avenue
· Consideration of CRA 2030 Plan, Design Guidelines and CRA Land
Development Regulations (LDR).
· Consideration of Feasibility for Attraction Complex.
4. Thursday. September 1Sth. 200S at 6:30 p.m. at 639 E. Ocean Ave. Suite
107
· Consideration and Review of Parks and Recreations plans for CRA Parks.
8474
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
XVI. Future Project Preview
8475
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.
XVII. Adjournment.
8476
Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Community Redevelopment Board with respect to any matter
considered at this meeting will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim
record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based.
The CRA shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the CRA. Please
contact Douglas Hutchinson at 561-737-3256 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the CRA
to reasonably accommodate your request.