Loading...
Minutes 07-25-06 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 25, 2006 AT 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: Lee Wische, Chair Woodrow Hay, Vice Chair Sergio Casaine William Cwynar Shirley Jaskiewicz Roger Saberson David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Director, Planning and Zoning Absent Sharon Grcevic Diana Johnson I. Call to Order/Pledge of Allegiance Chair Wische called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. The members recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, led by Chair Wische. II. Introduction of the Board Chair Wische introduced the board members and staff. III. Agenda Approval Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Cwynar seconded the motion that passed 6-0. IV. Approval of Minutes Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to approve the minutes as submitted. Mr. Cwynar seconded the motion that passed 6-0. v. Communications and Announcements Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, gave the final disposition of the June 27, 2006 Planning and Development Board meeting agenda items. July 5, 2006 City Commission Meeting The Forest Hill Lot 3, Block 2 zoning variance was approved. The annexations for Aspen Glen and Lake Trail Estates were approved on second reading. Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 18, 2006 City Commission Meeting July 25, 2006 The Comprehensive Plan Policy Amendments regarding affordable housing and corridor studies were approved. The Sonic Restaurant conditional use was approved. The new site plan for RBC Centura Bank was approved. The master plan modification for Boynton Lakes North was approved. VI. Old Business Attorney Tolces administered an oath to all who planned to testify. A. Master Plan Modification 1. Project: Agent: Applicant: Location: Description: Meadows PUD (MPMD 05-013) Steven L. Cohen & Associates, P .A. Boynton Meadows, LLC Southwest corner of Congress Avenue and Hypoluxo Road Request for Master Plan Modification approval for the addition of 34 town homes to the Meadows Planned Unit Development (PUD). Chair Wische announced the board had reviewed this item previously, but it was being repeated due to faults in the original notices to the property owners. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, briefly reviewed the project. Prior to the start of the meeting, he had distributed to the board and Recording Secretary a letter from a homeowner in Nautica Sound in regard to this item. Mr. Breese related the Meadows PUD Master Plan had originally been approved in 1978 with a total of 1,394 dwelling units. However, only 1,359 were constructed, leaving 35 additional units to be constructed. The request before the board would change Tract G, a 22.87-acre tract currently known as Meadows on the Green Condominium, and cut out 7.966-acres of that to construct 34 town homes. Steven Cohen, representing the applicant, Boynton Meadows, LLC, appeared and commented this was their first view of the letter from the homeowner to which Mr. Breese referred. He asked for a minute to review the letter. Chair Wische opened the floor to public comment. David Core, Attorney with St. John, Core & Lemme, P.A., 1601 Forum Place, Centurion Tower, Suite 701, West Palm Beach, FI 33401, spoke on behalf of the Nautica Sound Homeowners Association, Inc., which was the association managing the property immediately adjacent to the proposed Meadows project. The Association had authorized him to appear on behalf of the homeowners who would be affected by the plan modification and new site plan, if approved. The members of that group wanted the board to be aware of their objections to this proposed plan modification and site plan for the following reasons: 2 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 · The Association and affected owners believe the proposed modification is substantial under the terms of the Code and should not be approved. · The staff report did not address any potential environmental impacts posed by the plan. Gopher tortoises, a species protected under law in Florida, had been sighted in the vicinity where the townhomes would be built. · The property at issue was initially approved for recreational purposes under the original master plan. The proposed project would reduce the size of the lake and turn it into a retention or drainage pond to be used exclusively for residential purposes. He did not note any new recreational amenities or facilities under consideration to offset this change. Mr. Core maintained the proposed project did represent a major modification and warranted further study and review by the board and the applicant. The Association requested the project not be approved, or be deferred pending additional studies. Attorney Tolces commented the developer would have to submit information on the environmental impact at the time of permitting. Diane Schrader, 7164 Chesapeake Circle, Boynton Beach, was concerned for the fate of the tortoises and egrets, should the project be approved. The residents of Nautica Sound would have a road right behind their houses and while the residents of the new project would overlook the lake, the Nautica Sound residents would have to look into the backyards of the new homes. They were concerned about dumpsters, light poles, noise, parking and traffic. The residents of Nautica Sound were convinced their property values would drop significantly if the project were to be completed. Ms. Schrader contended there were other places on the property in question where the homes could be built that would not have such an effect on the homeowners of Nautica Sound. In response to a question from Mr. Cwynar, Ms. Schrader noted she was able to tell the difference between regular turtles and tortoises, although an environmental study would have to determine that. Chair Wische recognized the presence in the audience of Mayor Taylor, Vice Mayor McKoy, and Commissioners Ensler and Ferguson. David Katz, 67 Midwood Lane, Boynton Beach, The Meadows, appreciated the point of view of the Nautica Sound residents, but noted the site plan and modification was for The Meadows and not for Nautica Sound. Everyone in the Meadows was in favor of it. The applicant had met all the requirements and elements set forth by staff. He praised the developer, saying they had made enhancements to the property and addressed the concerns of the persons in the apartments. Steven Cohen responded there was an existing berm between Nautica Sound and this property and that would be kept as it was, but be reinforced with landscaping that would bring it up to what it was when initially built. It would act as a buffer between the roadway and Nautica Sound as well as the units that would face the lake. There would be a minimum of 75 feet from the units to the property lines of the Nautica Sound residents. Their lighting was designed with photometrics, so no lighting would flow over onto the property of surrounding residents. They understood the concern about the tortoises and would take the appropriate steps necessary to 3 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 protect the species that were there. The lake size was to remain the same (depth, width, length), but would be reconfigured. The existing lake would not be used for retention. There were other lakes in the area that tied in to retention areas. Mr. Cohen declared they had done a traffic study along Meadows Drive and no additional turn lanes would be required, based on the trips being generated today. All appropriate engineering plans had been completed and would be submitted to the City upon approval. Julie Waresh, 7108 Chesapeake Circle, Boynton Beach, asked why the City had erred in its notice to the surrounding residents at the previous meeting. If she had not noticed it and brought it to the City's attention, many Nautica Sound residents would not have had an opportunity to voice their opinions on the proposed project. When they did notify the Nautica Sound homeowners, the City did not mention the proposed project would abut Nautica Sound. They were concerned about lights, noise and dumpsters. They felt the developer was "shoe horning" town houses behind a long-existing single-family development. If the proposed project actually did abut Freedom Shores School, why could they not fill in the other side of the lake, put the town houses against the school and to the north against the retention pond and not up against the backyards of Nautica Sound? Attorney Tolces administered an oath to latecomers who planned to testify. Kris Fearnley, 7092 Chesapeake Circle, Boynton Beach, was concerned about impacts on lighting, trash, and traffic. His house had been robbed recently and an increase in people would, he felt, increase the likelihood of crime in the area and put a strain on the Police. Chair Wische closed the floor to public comment when no one else came forward. Vice Chair Hay asked if staff had the proper documentation on the tortoise matter, and Mr. Breese responded they did not and this would be addressed during permitting. Ms. Jaskiewicz inquired whether this would be the last possible project for The Meadows, and Mr. Breese responded if this project were approved, they could build one more unit. Ms. Jaskiewicz also asked if the chosen location was the only feasible place on which the project could be built and Mr. Breese confirmed that was the case. Ms. Jaskiewicz calculated the density was slightly more than 4 units per acre, and Mr. Breese concurred. Ms. Jaskiewicz did not believe it could be classified as high density. Ms. Jaskiewicz inquired whether the berm could be enhanced to make the Nautica Sound residents more comfortable, and Mr. Cohen responded they were re-Iandscaping the berm and replacing trees blown down by recent storms. They were also going to sod it and add new ground covers. Mr. Breese commented that was actually a condition of approval. Ms. Jaskiewicz noted they had to meet some 50 conditions of approval. Mr. Casaine noted when this project was first brought before this board, a series of points was brought to its attention. One of them was this project was a continuation of the apartment buildings that already existed and at one time, had been approved by the City. Based on that information, they had some "room" in the decision-making process. At the time, they did not know that Nautica Sound would be affected. If they had realized that, the items brought to the board's attention at this meeting would probably have been examined more closely to determine if the positions of the Nautica homeowners were correct in regard to the tortoises, 4 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 dumpsters, lights, roadway, access and so forth. He felt the apartments as they existed previously were inadequate and unsightly. That changed when this developer took it over and made them cleaner, fixed the entrances, built a clubhouse beside them, painted the apartments, and reduced the number of leased apartments. Mr. Casaine did not believe the quality of life of people in over 40 homes in Nautica Sound should be jeopardized and he called for a speedy review of their concerns. He believed that with all that was going on with the apartments, steps could be taken to assure the quality of life of the Nautica Sound residents would not be affected, but that had to be more closely examined. Motion Mr. Casaine moved the Master Plan Modification be tabled until the items brought to the board's attention at this meeting had been studied to make certain it was in compliance with what was anticipated previously. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. Attorney Tolces advised there needed to be a date certain for tabling an item. Mr. Casaine added that the item would be tabled until the next Planning & Development Board meeting on August 22, 2006. Mr. Breese asked for clarification on what Mr. Casaine wanted to be studied, other than the tortoise situation that would be addressed during permitting. Mr. Casaine responded he was talking about the parking lot, lights, dumpsters, and roads. Mr. Breese replied they had all been addressed in the staff report. Mr. Casaine remarked the only thing that was not in the staff report was that the project was up against the Nautica Sound development. Mr. Breese replied the staff report did indicate the distance separation between it and Nautica Sound; it talked about the setbacks that exist in Nautica Sound versus the setbacks being proposed. Mr. Casaine acknowledged that was the case, but since Nautica Sound had not been notified of the previous meeting and did not have time to listen to the comments from the board, to satisfy them that their concerns were reviewed and taken into consideration, the project should undergo further review. Chair Wische declared this board went by proper zoning and codes and ordinances. Staff had mentioned the proposed project complied with all of them. It was the kind of building that was happening all over, as long as projects met the Codes, ordinances and regulations. Mr. Saberson confirmed with Mr. Casaine that his motion was to table the project so a closer look could be taken at the points brought to the board's attention by the residents at this meeting. Chair Wische responded staff indicated they had discussed those points in the staff report. Following an inconclusive vote, Chair Wische asked for a roll call vote. Vote The motion to table failed 2-4, Chair Wische, Mr. Cwynar, Ms. Jaskiewicz, and Mr. Saberson dissenting. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 Motion Mr. Cwynar moved to approve the request for Master Plan Modification for the addition of 34 townhomes to the Meadows Planned Unit Development (PUD). Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. Chair Wische asked for a roll call vote. Vote The motion passed 4-2, Mr. Casaine and Wee Chair Hay dissenting. B. New Site Plan 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Meadows Townhomes (NWSP 05-032) Steven L. Cohen & Associates, Inc. Boynton Meadows, LLC 100 Meadows Circle Request for New Site Plan approval for 34 town homes and related site improvements on a 7.966-acre tract within the Meadows Planning Unit Development (PUD). Ed Breese presented the request. Conceptual drainage information was provided for the City's review and the information was deemed to be adequate at this time with further review at the time of permitting. The egress to the site is through the condominium project running north to a cui de sac returning the same way. The PUD regulations require the buffers and setbacks to mirror those of surrounding properties. The Nautica Sound development to the west was approved with rear setbacks of 15 feet abutting the proposed Meadows Townhome parcel. The closest any of the townhouse units are to Nautica's east property line would be 20 feet 5 inches at the northwest corner of the townhouse property. Most typical buildings were 40-60 feet away from the Nautica Sound property. At the south end of the property, the town homes are proposed to be in excess of 110 feet from the first condominium building in the Meadows on the Green complex. The seven townhome buildings are arranged around the lake in clusters of four and six units ranging from 1,638 and 1,665 square feet under air. Staff recommended approval of the plan since it was in compliance with PUD regulations. Chair Wische asked Mr. Cohen whether the applicant agreed with all conditions of approval, and the response from Mr. Cohen was in the affirmative. Mr. Cohen thought the project would enhance the neighborhood and secure the safety of the residents. They were all two stories, but when standing on the second floor, the neighbors behind would not be affected, because there was 11 feet from floor to floor and an average height would be six feet tall. There were only two units that looked over the Nautica Sound property; the rest faced the opposite direction, east towards the lake. Ms. Jaskiewicz noted some of the comments heard from the residents at this meeting were included in the conditions of approval, so they could feel some comfort that a shovel could not be put in the ground until those conditions were met. Chair Wische opened the floor for public comment. 6 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 David Core, Attorney with St. John, Core & Lemme, Centurion Tower, Suite 701, 1601 Forum Place, West Palm Beach, FI 33401, stated that one of the findings and determinations this board had to make in order to pass this on to the Commission was that the site plan would not generate, among other things, excessive traffic and noise. Staff and the agent represented the closest unit would be 20 plus feet from the Nautica Sound homes, and most would be 40-60 feet away. He believed a road width in Boynton Beach should be 20 feet on center. That would mean a 40-foot road from end to end on the roadway that runs through the north end of the cui de sac and then returns back. If most of the units are 40-60 feet from the Nautica property lines, when any unit owner in the townhomes would be returning to the public thoroughfare from that roadway, they would be as close to the property line as could conceivably be possible under human circumstances, not Code circumstances. He submitted to the board that the traffic generated from 85 parking places, when at full capacity, would create a substantial increase in noise and traffic. This board had to make a finding that this site plan would not create that effect, among others. He could not see how the board could make a finding that this project would not generate excessive noise and traffic, as currently planned. This project impacts Nautica Sound and Nautica Sound needs to be considered. Brenda Sansaricq, 7080 Chesapeake Circle, Boynton Beach, spoke as a resident directly affected by the proposed project. She directed her remarks to the agent, Steven Cohen. Ms. Sansaricq declared Nautica Sound was a zero lot line community. Ms. Sansaricq is a real estate agent who sells homes and she did not believe she would be able to sell any more homes in Nautica Sound if this project went through. Having someone 20 feet behind you was like having no space at all. She believed the proposed project would destroy the beauty of Nautica Sound as well as the property values. She felt some kind of nature should be kept in the neighborhood. David Katz, 67 Midwood Lane, The Meadows, Boynton Beach, had lived in the area for 30 years. He had not come before this board to complain when Nautica Sound was developed and that was 400 homes. The proposed project was only 34 homes. Abutting recreational land was available in two sections and put together, comprised a 7-acre parcel. There was a vacant piece of land in The Meadows and to the west of it, there was a recreational piece of land for Nautica Sound. That would never be developed. He had seen egrets on the two vacant pieces of land, so they would not be displaced by this project. The Meadows did not have a problem with this project, and it was their PUD. The number of traffic in trips would not affect Nautica Sound. If anybody, they would affect The Meadows, and The Meadows had no problem with this project. Jacqueline Peterson, 7204 Chesapeake Circle, Boynton Beach, expressed concern for noise pollution. Their house was exposed to loud music at all hours of the day and night, often until 1 or 2 a.m. in the morning. She was concerned about the amount of noise the proposed project might create. She expressed total disapproval and asked the developer to find another place to build the units. Diane Schrader, 7164 Chesapeake Circle, Boynton Beach, used one of the elevation drawings for the proposed project to point out the berm and their houses, saying they would look out over a roadway with a gate. She realized the proposed units would be sold for approximately $300K; however, the units that had been converted from apartments to condominiums were still occupied by people who were not homeowners of $200K units. If investors bought them, they would eventually have to be rented. Anyone looking out his or her 7 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 back door would be able to look into her master bedroom. She thought it was wrong. She understood they were entitled to build these units back in 1978. But once they built a lake in 1986, they all assumed they would not be doing any more building. There were other places the units could be placed. She asked why they did not block the condos in The Meadows instead of blocking their properties. She strongly believed her property values would go down if this project was approved, possibly by $150K to $200K. She thought that was unfair. If the project was going to go through regardless of their concerns, she hoped the developer would consider modifying the placement of the units to preserve the character of the Nautica Sound neighborhood. She asked the developers to reconsider the project and/or its location. Motion Mr. Saberson moved to approve staff's recommendation (of approval). Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. Ms. Jaskiewicz confirmed the staff conditions of approval were included in that recommendation. Following an inconclusive vote, Chair Wische asked for a roll call vote. Vote The motion passed 4-2, Wee Chair Hay and Mr, Casaine dissenting, 7. New Business A. Development of Regional Impact Amendment Master Plan Modification 1. Project: Quantum Park NOPC #16 (DRIA 06- 001) (MPMD 06-003) Eugene A. Gerlica, Quantum Group of Companies MFT Development, Inc. West side of 1-95 between Miner Road and the Boynton (C-16) Canal Request for Development of Regional Impact Amendment (DRIA)/Master Plan Modification (MPMD) to allow an increase in the maximum allowable dwelling units from 1,105 to 1,905 units and change in designation of lots 17, 52, 58, 102 and 103 to Mixed Use (MU). Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Eugene Gerlica, agent for applicant, 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Boynton Beach, responded they had received the complete staff report on the previous Friday, but were only able to look at it on the day before this meeting. It was their intention to reject all staff conditions of approval and they would present their case in support of that. They were willing to discuss all of the conditions and answer questions. 8 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 Mr. Gerlica declared the most problematic thing was that the staff report recommended denial of their requests. Staff also made recommendations about what the developer should do, i.e. withdraw application, designate lands other than proposed for Mixed Use, and limit residential units to 500 units. They passionately disagreed with all of those recommendations and denials. They were not angry or disrespectful of staff, the board or the City. They were passionate about Quantum Park and especially about what they intended to do going forward. Mr. Gerlica indicated they had made application and submitted traffic studies along with it. Letters from Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Florida Department of Transportation, and Palm Beach County all confirmed their project was "approvable." There were basically eight reasons they did not agree with staff's findings and recommendations. Specifically, he discussed the Conditions of Approval, Exhibit F, of the staff report. The following refers to the numbered conditions. Condition #1 identified Mr. Gerlica as the applicant and he was not the applicant. The applicant was MFT Development, Inc. Condition #2 related to concurrency, but concurrency in Quantum Park equated to vesting and Quantum Park was vested in 1984 for the development proposed at the time and the development order conditions that were laid upon it. The traffic generated in Quantum Park, as demonstrated by their traffic studies, was proposed to be less than the original development order. Concurrency, then, was not an issue. Whether or not the operational aspects of the roads going through Quantum met the traffic performance standards was a different issue. Staff recommended the applicant comply with the requests of both the Palm Beach County Traffic Division and the Florida Department of Transportation. The applicant change in the DRI is the MFT Development, a general partner of Quantum Limited Partners. That was the only entity that could make this change, as defined in the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Quantum Park. Quantum Limited Partners is the declarant. With that, they have the consent of all landowners in Quantum Park to modify the DRI and the Master Plan and have done so on numerous occasions at the request of landowners, including the City. That was his objection to requiring the applicant to do that. Mr. Gerlica believed the statement that, "The applicant must identify a strategy to mitigate any identified traffic problems, and provide surety to the City for any necessary improvements at the intersections of Quantum Boulevard with Gateway Boulevard and Quantum Boulevard with Congress Avenue, prior to City approval of NOpe #16" was too broadly worded. For example, the six-Ianing of Gateway Boulevard would require some drainage improvements, and this condition would require the applicant to make those improvements. Mr. Gerlica disagreed with the statement in condition #2 that the applicant had chosen not to provide the information necessary to enable staff to make a qualified statement regarding disposition of NOPC #16. The applicant did provide information to make judgment on NOPC #16, which was to make a determination of a substantial deviation. Any other traffic-related issue was appropriately done at the master plan level, when the intensities of development and traffic generation and the driveway configurations would be identified. They were not identified now. They were not even certain where all the 800 units would go if approved, although they had a plan. 9 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 Mr. Gerlica maintained Quantum Limited Partners had already agreed in NOPC #12 that the developer or the existing occupants of Quantum Park would provide the signalization to the intersections of Quantum Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard and Congress Avenue and Quantum Boulevard. Mr. Gerlica stressed they already had a development order condition stating that the existing occupants of Quantum Park would pay for a traffic signal when warranted. The City has a letter of credit from a previous developer from NOPC #12 and a condition to have that intersection studied. It was their understanding the City had requested the County to make that study and it would be done to determine if a signal is warranted. If the signal is warranted, when it was done, the surety is in place for the City to install a light. For those reasons, they rejected Condition #2. His discussion on concurrency relates to Condition #1. He deferred to Ms. Andrea Troutman of Pinder Troutman Consulting to speak on this issue. Andrea Troutman of Pinder Troutman Consulting, 2324 South Congress Avenue, West Palm Beach, stated that Mr. Gerlica had made all of her points, but she would reiterate them. The NOPC traffic analysis looked at the methodology and changed it from a daily methodology to a peak hour methodology because that was the level of service standard adopted by the DOT and Palm Beach County. Based on a peak hour standard, this modification was not increasing the trips beyond what was vested for the Quantum Park DR!. This was a vested project for concurrency. Because they were not increasing the traffic, they met the County's traffic performance standards. The County's comment letter addressed more operational issues than concurrency issues. Pinder Troutman was working with the County to show that the actual concurrency was met and that the operational issues would be addressed at the site plan level. As far as the condition for the warrant analyses, the condition was read that they would construct signals at the two locations mentioned by Mr. Gerlica, when warranted. A warranty study was completed in 2001 and the County was about to undertake one warrant analysis and under contract to complete the other warrant analysis. There was already a condition in place that when warranted, the signals would be constructed. Mr. Gerlica declared that outside of the traffic with the NOPC, it was important to note they were not proposing anything in this NOPC and change that had not been done before. Nothing was precedent setting. They had successfully, through the process, abandoned a roadway link and they intended to do it in the same manner, and appropriately so, through a replatting process and a proper abandonment that would come to this board. They could not build anything based on the approval of NOpe #16. Everything had to come back through the boards with the appropriate detail to make decisions. The staff report said, "The elimination of Quantum Lakes Drive and Quantum Boulevard, south of Gateway Boulevard, will require formal abandonment by the City, for which applications need to be filed and approved." Mr. Gerlica maintained they had demonstrated how to properly abandon a roadway link. The roadway link in Quantum Park that was now occupied by the high school, in his opinion was not properly abandoned. It never came before the City for a replat and did not have a formal abandonment procedure, to their knowledge. When they did the first half of Quantum Lakes Drive and Quantum Boulevard with the Horton Development on the northern part of the project (now known as Parkside), there was a request to abandon and a 10 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 proposal to replat that land. They intend to do that. That was the City process and it would be identified and conditioned during the master plan. The applicant objected to staff telling them they should only include the MU designation on the Tri-Rail site and move 500 units of the requested 800 there, even though Tri-Rail had only requested 400 units. They rejected this condition because they needed and wanted the 800 units and they wanted them to demonstrate to the South Florida Regional Transport Authority (SFRTA) that they had the housing units to designate to them, to do a Transportation-Oriented Development (TOD) at the Tri-Rail site, regardless of the final number. When they got into site planning, this would be determined. They could not deal directly with them until they saw they had the residential units. They did not put Mixed Use on that land because that was their leverage to come to an agreement with Tri-Rail, to make a business deal. That was why they asked for the residential units and did not propose Mixed Use for the Tri-Rail site, pending a possible deal. A subsequent NOPC would follow. Doug McDonald, President of MFT Development, Inc. and President of Quantum Park Homeowners Association, 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Boynton Beach, spoke of their desire to put the additional units on the Tri-Rail site. Mr. McDonald spoke of the emphasis in the staff report on the lack of industrial uses and the City's desire to preserve what it had. He went back in history and said that in 2000, that was true. Less than two years ago, during NOPC #14, the City wanted to take the largest piece of contiguous industrial land and change it from Office Industrial Commercial to Government Institutional and this was found to be consistent with the City's policies. Now, when he asked for seven acres of land across the road from that, it was no longer consistent with the City's policies. Mr. Breese countered this was because City services were needed to serve the residents and the development at Quantum, as well as other developments coming on line, with a fire station. Mr. McDonald declared this application was for lots 52 and 17. They were zoned Office Industrial Retail and surrounded by seven buildings, of which his companies owned five. Every one of those seven buildings was an office building. Two of those seven buildings were prior industrial buildings, one owned by Cooper Industries, which was converted 100% to office, and the other, Motorola's old plant facility, that was converted 100% to office use for Centex Rooney's head offices. There was no industrial use on Gateway Boulevard except for the Premier property. His company and the two pertinent boards (Planning & Development and the City Commission) had worked together to develop 104M sq. ft. of industrial space in Quantum Park. The staff report went to great lengths to tell them, as developers, what the market should be and what they should build and what was required and what was not required. Besides the Quantum development and Renaissance Commons, millions of square feet of offices and retail space were being developed. In Quantum, there was no residential construction going on. There was, however, a 100+ sq. ft. Publix Shopping Center, which he thought was the most state-of-the art Publix Center ever built in south Florida. The other building going up right beside it was a 120K sq. ft. Child Services Headquarters for Palm Beach County, another office building. Mr. McDonald mentioned staff had talked about a study commissioned for the M-1 zone. Quantum never had an M-1 designation in it. In the last three years, Mr. McDonald had 11 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 developed two industrial buildings in Quantum Park, both of about 20K square feet - one on Gateway that was subsequently converted 100% into offices. The other was built at 1475 High Ridge Road. They were industrial buildings with rear, roll-up doors, true industrial buildings. The building turned out to be 100% occupied by offices because City staff did not approve the industrial uses they brought forward since they did not meet the industrial standards for Quantum. Quantum never met M-1 standards. They could not put industrial tenants in it. Quantum develops good-quality space. About two years ago, Mr. McDonald reported he began to hear talk of affordable housing at various levels. He started paying attention to the proposed transit development underway in West Palm Beach. He thought of the vesting they had in Quantum they would never be able to use. Tri-Rail has about nine acres of land north of Gateway Boulevard and east of High Ridge Road. He went to Tri-Rail and asked them if they wanted to participate in a TOD that could take place in about 14 months. They responded they were not developers, but railroad operators. Mr. McDonald offered to come up with a deal where Tri-Rail could run their railroad and they would develop some affordable housing units. Over the course of about six months, that venture ended with a trip to Tri-Rail's head offices in Ft. Lauderdale to attend a meeting Tri-Rail called but did not attend. He washed his hands of Tri-Rail, since they did not appear to be interested and he was busy. About four months ago, the City Manager and Assistant City Manager asked Mr. McDonald to see if they could get the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) going again, to "put it on a napkin," as the City Manager suggested. However, that would cost a lot of money. They asked him to look into it and said they would then "take the ball and run with it." Mr. McDonald re- examined the project. As a result of that meeting with the City, they came up with a plan. There were two main objectives with Tri-Rail. One was they had to supply about 400 car parking spots for Tri-Rail and also provide parking for some 400-500 residential and a small amount of commercial and at the same time, make it affordable. They worked on the assumption that maybe they would not have to meet the parking requirements that were currently in effect, since it was a TOD. Even though they had to park what would amount to 850-900 cars, they thought they could only provide one per unit. They came up with a plan that developed 400 residential units with about 16-18K sq. ft. of commercial, leaving Tri-Rail completely alone, and did not touch their access or train station in any way. They considered what they had in Quantum already to see what they could do with it, in concept. They looked at Lot 52 on the south side of Gateway, came up with a scheme that created some lakefront housing on Lot 52, some commercial land on Gateway, tucked the parking in the middle, and developed some elevations that could work. They came up with some elevations for commercial that would work with what was already approved on the south end, across from the new Publix. They did the same thing on Lot 17 where they wanted to get an idea of density and what kind of commercial could be put there and how it could be parked. This produced 404 units. He thought it would be a good idea to have 404 units there and 400 at Tri-Rail. Considering how tentative the negotiations had been with Tri-Rail, he began to consider what could be done in Quantum with the amount of units already approved, 105 residential units and some commercial spots, and hold off on building that for awhile. If they could do the deal with Tri-Rail, that would be good. If they could not, they were the only people that could build affordable or workforce housing. He had no interest in putting the residential on the Publix site or buying industrial land somewhere else in Quantum. Quantum was almost built out. The reason Lot 58 came into the picture was that his company owned the lot. There was a 12 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 $12M office building on it that was fully occupied, but if he got the designation on it, he could be flexible. All they were here to do was present the big picture. This was the last piece left at Quantum. What Mr. McDonald needed from this board and the City Commission was the ability to move forward to see if they could create their plan, to see if they could get those concessions from the County. They needed a break on parking; if not, there would not be any affordable housing. Mr. McDonald thought the condition applied to this application of having to take care of anything that could ever conceivably happen to traffic on Gateway Boulevard was unfair. When Winston Trails signed such an open condition, it cost them $lOM. They wanted to develop Quantum the way they wanted to do it, never increase traffic, never have public objections, create the open space they said they would create, and create lineal parks. For 10 years, he had been warring with staff on the same items, the same issue of industrial land use. Gateway Boulevard was not a candidate for industrial buildings. He could not see any industrial buildings going on Gateway Boulevard. Chair Wische acknowledged everyone had gotten the point. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, reviewed the project and presented the information contained in the staff report, the full text of which is made a part of the permanent record. Staff concluded the request to amend the land use designation on Lots 17, 52 and 58 was not in the City's best interest. The City desired to retain the industrial potential on these parcels. The need to be able to attract and retain light industry was important to the community and acknowledged by the consultant hired by the City Commission to study the M-l zoning district. The consultant recommended a halt to further conversions of industrial land to residential uses. Also, when analyzing the request within the scope of Quantum Park as a whole, these individual, disjointed lots were less than five acres each, which would appear inadequate for the development of a first rate, well-integrated Mixed Use project. The other Mixed Use projects in Quantum Park ranged from 14.2 acres to 26.5 acres. Staff was hesitant to support an increase in the maximum number of allowable residential units in the DRI, when the 800 residential units requested could not currently be accommodated on the lots with Mixed Use designation. If the requested amendment included the Tri-Rail parcel, in preparation for a TOD, including an increase in the corresponding dwelling units, staff would have supported that component of the request. Without this component, the request for a 72% increase in the number of residential units did not appear to be justified. As such, staff recommended denial of the request for 800 additional residential units. Relative to the proposed request to establish two new narrow parcels (Lots 102 and 103) from existing rights-of-way that the applicant intended to abandon, staff expressed concerns related to the potential effects on traffic patterns. City Engineering staff, along with Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering and FDOT, recommended that the applicant, to insure acceptable levels of service and safe operating conditions, conduct a traffic analysis, including necessary mitigation measures. Without the traffic study, staff cannot support this request. Staff viewed the two requests to eliminate Note #3 and Note #4 from the Master Plan as housekeeping matters and had no objection to their elimination. 13 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 Staff recommended the applicant withdraw this application and bring forward a new Notice of Proposed Change (NOPe) to the DRI, under the following conditions: 1. The Tri-Rail site is made part of the application, incorporating a Mixed Use designation, with only the additional units conceptualized for the TOD included. 2. A traffic study, as requested by the City, County and State is submitted, including intersection analyses and mitigation measures. 3. The submittal of a formal abandonment application should precede any request to create lots within existing right-of-way and provide a use designation. 4. The request to convert Lots 17, 52 and 58 to Mixed Use (MU) be dropped from the application, including the additional units not conceptualized for the TOD. The Staff Report Recommendation section declared the applicant had demonstrated the proposed change was not a substantial deviation requiring additional development of regional impact review. With regards to the proposed modifications to the Quantum Park Master Plan, staff recommended denial of the requested amendments due to the conflicts noted with the City's Comprehensive Plan, its inconsistency with the City's current direction to preserve and expand land availability for light industrial uses, as well as deficient traffic analyses, as noted by City staff, the County and State. Mr. Breese added that since the year 2000, approximately 93 acres within Quantum Park and along South Congress Avenue had been converted from Industrial land use zoning to Residential or Mixed Use. That had greatly reduced the City's ability to attract "spin-off" businesses, potentially from Scripps, and start-up businesses and companies looking to relocate. That was why staff felt passionate about trying to retain whatever industrial land remained to the City. Staff recommended denial of the two applications before the board. Board Discussion Mr. Cwynar asked how many people were moving into the State of Florida every day? Mr. Rumpf responded, "between 800 and 900 per day." Mr. Cwynar responded that the 3K surplus houses in Quantum and Renaissance Commons could be sold in four days, potentially. Mr. Cwynar did not understand why the board had to sit and listen to the entire report being read. The board members mentioned they had already read the staff report. Mr. Breese felt it was important to get it on the record. Mr. Cwynar had to leave at 8:30 p.m., but if he were able to stay, would cast his vote in favor of both applications. Mr. Casaine questioned the applicant, asking how many square feet, in total, Quantum had provided for the purposes of industrial use. Mr. Gerlica responded within Quantum Park there was an approval for a certain square footage of industrial space and that number was 1,722,700 square feet. Mr. Casaine asked how many square feet Quantum had and planned for 14 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 the future, including Mixed Use, for retail use. Mr. Gerlica responded in the vesting, there was 728,768 square feet for retail. Mr. Casaine asked how much office space they had or planned, in square feet. Mr. Gerlica responded in vested office space, they had 637,900 square feet. Ms. Jaskiewicz recalled the first presentation Mr. McDonald made for the Park of Commerce, which was to produce an economic development panacea and the stabilization of a wonderful tax base for Boynton Beach for years to come with the Park of Commerce, in broad terms. She noted that in 2000, the next Commission decided to allow some residential use in Quantum Park. The City was concerned at the time because they realized residential properties were far more burdensome on City services and utilities than industrial, as the Park was originally designed to be. Ms. Jaskiewicz addressed Mr. Gerlica, referring to his comment that the City should take their word for the accuracy of the figures, as opposed to that of City staff, who were also professionals. In 2000, the City took Quantum's word for everything as opposed to recommendations by City staff. At that time, Quantum recognized the City's concerns about losing industrial space and the potential for decreasing the tax base, and Quantum made a promise the maximum of 1,000 units would be all it would have in the Park, and the rest would be devoted to the original plans of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The City just recently approved an additional 105 residential units. She was in a state of shock over the request to increase the residential units to 800 more. With regard to the potential Tri-Rail project, she believed that should be a totally separate presentation with something more concrete than a potential. She concurred completely with staff's recommendations. She hoped Quantum would come back at a future time in regard to the Tri-Rail project because it sounded good. Vice Chair Hay asked Mr. McDonald to clarify a dollar amount he would attach to affordable housing and Mr. McDonald responded, $180K. He adamantly disagreed with Ms. Jaskiewicz that Quantum was diminishing the tax base, and to the contrary, they had added substantially to the tax base for the City. Ms. Jaskiewicz made reference to services. They knew they had to get concessions from the County and from the City for parking and impact fees, or there could be no affordable housing. He reminded the board the City had started him on his quest regarding Tri-Rail. Mr. McDonald declared the City could not pick and choose. It either had a consistent policy pertaining to Industrial land or not. He felt it served the City's purpose when the City came to Quantum and asked them, because they were the only people who could rezone it, to rezone it. Once they did that and then came in with this request, they were hearing about the scarcity of industrial land again. Mr. Breese responded he respectfully requested that decision; however, Quantum and other developments in the area warranted a fire station in Quantum Park. Certain policies overrode other policies in importance. Vice Chair Hay asked about daily traffic trips versus peak time trips. If they increased by 800 homes, a 72% increase, how could the trips stay at 63,752? Angela Troutman responded it did not stay the same on a daily basis. On a daily basis, it caused an increase, but because the residential traffic has a lower peak hour to daily relationship than the industrial and office use, on a peak hour basis, it stays the same. For an industrial project, the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are when all the employees go in and out, so that has a much higher percentage of traffic occurring during the peak hours for their overall daily. On a residential site, they had traffic all day long with stay-at-home mothers, going to the store, etc. So, the percentage of the same daily trip was lower. For industrial it was 12-15% 15 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 during the peak hour, and for residential, it was 10% during the peak hour. The analysis was completed to be consistent with both DOT and County, which evaluate traffic now on a peak hour basis. When Quantum first started, it was evaluated on a daily basis. They were trying to be consistent and while it was to their advantage, it was a policy accepted by DOT and the County and was used on the Motorola DRI, with the Vista Center DRI, converting the uses to better use the capacity. Vice Chair Hay asked the applicant if they had any objection to getting the recommended traffic studies done. Ms. Troutman responded the condition in place right now said when warranted, the two referenced signals at Quantum Boulevard and Gateway and Quantum Boulevard and Congress Avenue would be constructed. It did not say who would do the warrant study. They did a warrant study in 2001 and were agreeing to do another warrant study of the one intersection - the County was going to be doing a warrant study of the other section. If either of the warrants showed the need for signalization, the development order already has a condition saying those signals had to be constructed. Chair Wische opened the floor for public comment. No one came forward, but Mr. Breese asked for an opportunity for the Director of Public Works, Jeff Livergood, to speak to any traffic or other issues. Chair Wische agreed. Jeff Livergood, Director of Public Works and Engineering for the City, commented for the benefit of the board that staff was very comfortable with the traffic analysis done by Pinder Troutman. Staff was concerned with some of the vague language that existed. In looking at the big picture, at a master development like Quantum Park, it was platted and approved with certain assumptions, that roadways were platted and would exist that way into the future. Roadways exist to carry traffic to and from those individual units within the development and also take traffic from those units and from those buildings to the arterial roadways. Staff became concerned not only about the number of total trips that are vested in the development, but also about the access and the safety of access trips to the arterial roadway network. What sparked staff's concern with this project was that there could be consideration for abandonments of roadways. Immediately staff became concerned that when you abandon a roadway and take a connectivity point to the arterial network out, traffic that would have used that roadway would have to use a different access point to the arterial roadway, in this case, Gateway Boulevard. It was staff's opinion the analysis did need to look at the whole, because that was the community's responsibility. Mr. Livergood declared the applicant mentioned that as the declarant, they spoke on behalf of the occupants of Quantum Park. A number of times they had heard at this meeting that Ordinance 01-54 required, as part of NOPC #12, either the developer and existing occupants of Quantum Park be responsible to construct traffic signals at the intersections of Quantum Boulevard and Gateway Boulevard as well as Quantum Boulevard and Congress Avenue. Those were the two key areas of concern for City staff, the safe vehicular access to the arterial roadways at those two locations. Ordinance 01-43 requires the traffic signals be constructed when warranted, but by the developer or the taxpayer? It was staff's belief that should signals be warranted and constructed, they should not be constructed at the expense of the taxpayer. Any time you deal with development, it is the responsibility of that developer or builder to build the infrastructure that supports that development, not the taxpayer. Staff believes it is a responsible approach because of the roadway configuration changes that are proposed now. Staff believes the developer, who acknowledges he is speaking on behalf of all the property a16 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 owners in Quantum Park, should evaluate the traffic conditions with this roadway network as modified and consider the additional traffic volume that would be reassigned to Quantum Boulevard at Gateway and Quantum Boulevard at Congress Avenue. Palm Beach County would be conducting an evaluation at the intersection of Gateway and Quantum Boulevard. That was being done at the request of D.R. Horton, another developer. The staff condition on D.R. Horton was that one year after final occupancy of D.R. Horton's Parkside development, if signals were warranted, D.R. Horton would cause those signals to be constructed. Staff had a Letter of Credit to insure that happened. This was the City's surety that if warranted, the signal would be constructed. The analysis would be conducted within the next six to eight weeks by Palm Beach County staff. If the signal was not warranted at this time, the City had a responsibility to return the Letter of Credit to D.R. Horton and start from scratch at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard with Quantum Boulevard. Staff could accept that, because it was the City's responsibility to follow through on the condition of approval with D.R. Horton for Parkside. The next item was the proposed modification of parcels and the rights-of-way that would generate additional traffic, not only in the area accessing Gateway, but accessing it at one intersection versus what would could have been two. Staff was of the opinion the developer should be responsible to project into the future to determine: 1) can the existing roadway network accommodate the reconfigured and realigned traffic, and 2) what improvements would need to be made at the referenced intersections in order to safely accommodate that traffic volume and to provide surety for the construction of those improvements. The applicant mentioned the existing language was vague and he understood that. It was not the position of the City to require this developer to provide all improvements at the referenced intersections up to and including drainage. They were looking at traffic mitigation improvements only for the benefit of the public that drives through these intersections. He agreed the language in Ordinance 01-54 was vague, stating that traffic signals would be constructed when warranted. Again he asked, by whom? Ultimately, the City knew that at some point in the future, if they had not protected the interests of the community well, and the developer was not required to construct the necessary improvements, the improvements would be constructed at the expense of the taxpayer. It was their goal to analyze this properly now and look at it from the standpoint of impacts and the safety of the public. Chair Wische asked the current cost of a traffic light. Mr. Livergood responded a mast arm signal with steel arms could cost from $200K to $250K. A span wire signal could cost from $80K to $lOOK. Mr. Casaine addressed Mr. Livergood, congratulating him on his remarks. It was the first time he had heard someone from staff explain the requirements, the needs and the concerns regarding traffic, with all of the construction that was going on in the City. Access to arterial networks was of concern and they look at the big picture. Industrial traffic was less than residential combined with mixed use traffic. This firm had considered the problem and took on the responsibility of contracting the services of a traffic consultant. The public asked every other week, "What is going to happen with the traffic in our City?" The answer had been consistent from staff, that "There is no problem because it meets the requirements of the County." Now, 17 Meeting Minutes Planning &. Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 he was hearing the truth. He was hearing the responsibility with which they had to look at the growth of our City and how the traffic impacted the City. He thanked Mr. Livergood for that. Chair Wische again opened the floor for the public to speak on this item, and closed it when no one came forward. Rebuttal from Quantum Agent Eugene Gerlica Mr. Gerlica was concerned with the staff report and recommendations. They believed safety and access of the driveways that access Gateway Boulevard were of importance and the necessary improvements needed to be done and would be done, when a Master Plan was submitted and they knew what was going to be built on the lots that were so designated. They were looking at the big picture now. On a site-specific basis, it would be time to look at the access movements. For example, on Lot 52, there were currently two accesses approved, one on Park Ridge Road and the other on Quantum Lakes Drive. Presuming Quantum Lakes Drive was abandoned and a Mixed-Use development was placed there, including the roadway area, the driveway on Gateway Boulevard would remain. The driveway on Park Ridge Boulevard was going to remain. In essence, there was no change between the existing Master Plan and the proposed Master Plan. The only traffic that may be rerouted were those motorists that currently used the "hot right" there, which was an unsafe configuration, and would be required to go to the intersection of Quantum Boulevard and Gateway that currently had a dedicated right turn lane. If that turn lane needed to be adjusted due to increased movements, there would be a development order condition of the development on Lot 52. That was what occurred with the D.R. Horton development. At the time of the NOPC #12 approval, a development order condition was to construct those signals. Mr. Gerlica corrected Mr. Livergood on one point. There were two definite entities identified as being required to construct those signals and that was the developer or the occupants of Quantum Park. There were a number of strategies to perfect that. That condition exists and would not disappear. The taxpayers of Boynton Beach would not be required to do that. They had every assurance of that in place already, whether this application was acted on favorably or not. The applicant agreed the access and safety would be studied at the time of the Master Plan. Mr. Livergood mentioned the development order, Ordinance 01-54, and the requirement for the signal warrants. There was a little confusion on DOT's part because they commented on NOPC #12, and required those signal warrants be performed. Those signal warrants were performed. They were just never submitted to DOT because they were not part of the Master Plan process or the site plan process. At that time, signalization was not warranted. Now, the applicant shared the City's concerns that if warranted, they should be built. The City currently had a Letter of Credit to build the signal at Gateway Boulevard and Quantum Boulevard and the County was going to do the traffic study, potentially before this NOPC was even voted on. There was assurance there. After that, the NOPC #12 condition contained the assurance the occupants or the developer of the lands around it would build a signal, if required at the intersection of Congress Avenue and Quantum Boulevard. The Quantum Park Homeowners Association had authorized the Congress Avenue & Quantum Boulevard signal warrant study be done. He was advised by their traffic engineers the appropriate time to do those warrant studies would be in the fall and during season. They requested they not do those studies until September or October and have them complete by the end of the year. If it were warranted, appropriate measures would be taken. 18 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25,2006 In Quantum Park, there had been four signal locations that had been required to post surety; four developers, four signal locations. In each case, the signal was not constructed because it was not warranted. In all the cases where signals did exist, the signals had been constructed pursuant to development order conditions at the time of site and master plan approval. A case in point was Quantum Park Village South and North. When they came in, the development was conditioned to build that signal before constructive occupancy and it was now in place. Including traffic engineering and construction, done by the private sector, the cost was slightly more than $200K, with mast arms with full movements, which was for a six-lane highway. In regard to their 1,000-unit promise as referenced by Ms. Jaskiewicz, Mr. Gerlica said that was in 2000. Motorola was still making cell phones. Abacoa had not even been opened. A lot of things had happened since 2000. In Quantum Park, with their multiple designations on the lots, they had the flexibility, Motorola and Coiltronics for example, that if manufacturing moved out or industrial use moved out, office moved in. If the economic situation changed and office moved out and industrial moved in, they could do that. The 1,000 unit promise was valid at that time and they intended to keep it. The housing boom occurred and market conditions changed. What they were trying to do now was meet the market condition to provide affordable housing. In his opinion, there was no better place to do that than Quantum Park. They had the vesting. They had Tri-Rail. They already had the beginning with their Mixed Use developments. This just continued it down the road and, hopefully, connected Renaissance Commons to the commercial and the rest of the residential. Mr. Gerlica reiterated they were not proposing anything that had not been done before. A precedent had been established for the approval process established for the abandonment of the roads. He disagreed with Mr. Breese that the appropriate thing to do was get the designation first. If he submitted a site plan on that roadway and it was not designated Mixed Use, it would be rejected and pushed back to him. He was not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to make the application until he knew he had that designation there and the application included a plat, a request to abandon, a site plan, traffic studies, building floor plans/elevations, and everything that was required in the master plan process in a PID. They went to considerable effort to get the PID zoning changed in 2000 to accommodate residential units and they wanted to use that process. Ms. Jaskiewicz asked Mr. Gerlica if his market studies indicated there was still a housing boom? Mr. Gerlica responded they saw a demand for affordable workforce housing if it could be provided. Ms. Jaskiewicz noted at a recent meeting, the anticipated affordable housing rate was said to be approximately $230K. Some of the smaller apartments at Renaissance Commons would almost meet that figure. The County set a figure considerably higher than the $180K mentioned by Mr. McDonald. Mr. Gerlica responded to Ms. Jaskiewicz, saying they were not going by any of those numbers. Their motivation was the request of the City and the urging of the Treasure Coast. They had met with County Commissioners, tried to strike a deal with Tri-Rail and were going to try again, provided this board and the City Commission gave them approval for their requests. These approvals would allow the applicant to demonstrate to the SFRTA that the City was on board with what the applicant proposed and had the residential units to provide to the Tri-Rail site. Their challenge was going to be to develop the housing with the lowest possible price and see how it measured up to that standard. Their land costs were low. Any off-site traffic improvements called for in the original DRI had been completed. 19 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 Ms. Jaskiewicz mentioned in the previous Public Hearing item, the members had a serious concern over the traffic that might be added from the addition of 34 homes to an area in The Meadows. Now, it was amazing this issue could be resolved so easily. Mr. Casaine commented this process was very important for a lot of reasons and for the future of Boynton Beach. In Boynton Beach, they had made many modifications, constantly changing mixed use to residential, which should not be done unless necessary. If the applicant could work with the City and come up with a formula that fit the needs of the people of the City, then they may approach what was known as real affordable housing. Some cities had applied this effectively. Between the year 2000 and 2006 there had been tremendous changes in Boynton Beach and they had to live up to those changes. Mr. Casaine spoke of the 1.7M sq. ft. of industrial space, the 728K sq. ft. of retail space, and the 650K sq. ft. of office space provided by Quantum, providing the space the City needed to acquire business and provide jobs. This developer was really contributing to the City and he was glad to see that. Mr. Casaine did not believe the staff report told the whole story. He had not heard anything in the discussions that could not be worked out between the City and the developer. He was certain the applicant was going to be responsible for the signals, if required. He had not heard anything that told him that that was up in the air and the residents of Boynton Beach would be taxed for the signals. Attorney Tolces advised a motion would have to be made in two parts. The first motion would be with respect to the DRI amendment to provide for increasing residential units from 1105 to 1,905. The second motion would deal with all changes to the Master Plan. Ms. Jaskiewicz tried to obtain a figure, in square feet, of the amount of residential the developer had or would have, but that information was not readily at hand, at least not in terms of square feet. Motion Mr. Casaine moved to approve the request for Development of Regional Impact Amendment/Master Plan Modification (MPMD) to allow an increase in the maximum allowable dwelling units from 1,105 to 1,905 units. Also, the motion is subject to the traffic study being adhered to by the applicant, even though they had been told staff agreed with the traffic study that had been provided by the applicant. Mr. Breese asked for a clarification of the additional condition. Mr. Casaine responded they had spoken about the traffic report or analysis presented by Ms. Troutman. They had also spoken about the study being made by the County to make sure all was in compliance. He asked for confirmation. Mr. Livergood responded he was correct. There were two issues. There was the study the County would be conducting soon at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Quantum Boulevard and the study the applicant, through Pinder Troutman, had said they would conduct at the intersection of Congress Avenue and Quantum Boulevard. Those two studies were coming. The question was, if signals were warranted, now or in the future as a result of changes made with NOPC #16, who would build the signals? Mr. Casaine understood the applicant would be responsible, if warranted. Mr. Livergood commented if that was his intention, that the board ask the applicant to post a surety. Attorney Tolces advised they were not at that point yet. At this point, it was a matter of recommending 20 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 or denying approval of the amendment to the DR!. The other issues could be taken up with the Master Plan Modification item. Mr. Casaine stated, "That is the motion." Vice Chair Hay asked if he was recommending approval or denial of the DR!. Mr. Casaine confirmed his motion was to approve the DRI amendment regarding the number of residential dwelling units. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Saberson asked what the conditions were in the motion. Mr. Casaine said the conditions of the traffic, which had to do with compliance with what the County found in its studies, as well as the commitment on the part of the applicant as far as the lights were concerned. Mr. Saberson believed the traffic condition should be addressed with respect to the Master Plan Modifications requested on this application. Attorney Tolces reiterated the motion should only address the increase in the residential units. Mr. Casaine amended his motion to that effect. Vice Chair Hay agreed with the change in the motion. After an inconclusive vote, Chair Wische asked for a roll call vote. Vote The motion passed 4-1, Ms. Jaskiewicz dissenting, Motion Mr. Casaine moved to approve the request to change the designation of Lots 17, 52, 58, 102 and 103 to Mixed Use. In addition, the motion was subject to the traffic condition mentioned previously where the applicant would abide by the results of the study the County was doing and be responsible for the cost of the lighting improvements, if warranted. Vice Chair Hay seconded the motion. Mr. Gerlica wanted to hear the wording of the condition because they had objected to having the app/icantresponsible for those things. The app/icantwas Quantum Limited Partners or MFT Development, Inc., the general partner for Quantum Limited Partners. They were in agreement that the existing condition, agreed to in NOPC #12, required the developer and the occupants of Quantum Park to build that light. They did not want to change it. Mr. Casaine changed his motion to read that the developer and existing occupants of Quantum Park would be responsible for the light in question. Mr. Casaine added the phrase, "if warranted." Vice Chair Hay agreed. Mr. Saberson stated that with respect to the responsibility for the traffic improvements, Mr. Casaine had indicated the developer would be responsible. He thought staff recommended the applicant be responsible for that and the developer and the applicant were two different entities. 21 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 Mr. Gerlica agreed they were two different entities and it was important to make that distinction. Mr. Casaine asked staff what the concern was here. Mr. Livergood stated that if, as a result of these changes a signal was warranted, whom would the City ask to construct the signal? Mr. Saberson responded the staff recommendation was the applicant. Mr. Livergood noted staff's recommendation was the applicant and it was the applicant who was making the request for these changes at this time. Mr. Saberson introduced a substitute motion. Motion Mr. Saberson moved to approve the staff recommendation with regard to the proposed modifications to the Quantum Park Master Plan. Mr. Saberson clarified that the effect of approving the staff recommendation was to deny the requested amendments to the Master Plan, referring to page 11 of the Staff Report. Attorney Tolces understood the current motion was to approve the Master Site Plan Modifications with the condition that the developer provide for the construction of the traffic signals, if warranted. He asked for and received confirmation that this was the motion. Mr. Casaine agreed. That motion was made and seconded. Mr. Saberson introduced a substitute motion and he would defer to Attorney Tolces whether that motion could be seconded and replace the other motion. Attorney Tolces suggested a motion could be made to amend the original motion to substitute staff's recommendation would be appropriate. Motion Mr. Saberson moved to amend the original motion to be the same as the substitute motion he made. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion for discussion. The Chair was not certain whether they would be voting on the amendment or the original motion. Attorney Tolces declared the question was whether the original motion was going to be amended and that was seconded. Right now there was a motion to amend the original motion and a vote had to be taken on whether or not to amend the original motion. Chair Wische asked if the amendment was for the developer to pay? Attorney Tolces responded the amendment was to have the board vote on staff's recommendation, which would be contrary to Mr. Casaine's original motion. If Mr. Saberson's motion to amend did not pass, they would return to Mr. Casaine's original motion. Chair Wische asked for a vote on Mr. Saberson's motion, which failed 2-3, Chair Wische, Vice Chair Hay, Mr. Casaine dissenting. The board returned to consideration of Mr. Casaine's original motion. Attorney Tolces reiterated the original motion was to approve the Master Plan Modification with the condition that the developer pay for the traffic lights at that intersection, if warranted. That motion was properly on the floor and was seconded. Attorney Tolces amended his statement to include the developer and the occupants of Quantum Park. 22 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 Mr. Gerlica indicated that was acceptable, and Mr. Casaine and Vice Chair Hay agreed also. Chair Wische asked for a roll call vote. The motion to approve passed 3-2, Mr. Saberson and Ms. Jaskiewicz dissenting. Ms. Jaskiewicz inquired of the Chairman why the board had not voted to move the Red Lobster and Smoky Bones items to precede the Quantum Park issue. Chair Wische remarked no one had brought it up during agenda approval. Mr. Casaine thought the board should make a motion about that. B. New Site Plan 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Red Lobster (06-018) Linda Nunn GMRI, Inc. (Neil Terwilliger) Out Lot #3 at Boynton Town Center, Approximately 450 feet north of the northeast corner of Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road. Request for New Sit Plan approval to construct a 7,010 square foot restaurant and related site improvements on Out Lot #3 of the Boynton Town Center site. Description: Chair Wische asked if the applicant was in agreement with all 39 conditions of approval. Linda Nunn, 1807 South Indian River Drive, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34950, responded they were in agreement with all the conditions of approval. Ed Breese, Principal Planner, declared he was pleased with the proposed project. Chair Wische opened the floor for public comment and closed it when no one came forward. Vice Chair Hay asked when the estimated opening date would be. Ms. Nunn responded if approved, construction would begin late winter 2006 to early spring of 2007. Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to approve the request for New Site Plan approval to construct a 7,010 square foot restaurant and related site improvements on Out Lot #3 of the Boynton Town Center site. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion that passed 5-0. C. New Site Plan 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Smokey Bones (NWSP 06-019) Linda Nunn GMRI, INC. (Neil Terwilliger) 23 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida July 25, 2006 Location: Out Lot #1 at Boynton Town Center, northeast corner of Congress Avenue and Old Boynton Road Request for New Site Plan approval to construct a 6,436 square foot restaurant and related site improvements on Out Lot #1 of the Boynton Town Center site. Description: Chair Wische asked Ms. Nunn if the applicant was in agreement with all of the conditions of approval, and Ms. Nunn responded they were in agreement with all conditions of approval. She added that the same company owned Red Lobster and Smokey Bones. Chair Wische opened the floor for public comment, closing it when no one came forward. Ms. Nunn responded the opening date of Smokey Bones would most likely coincide with that of Red Lobster. Motion Vice Chair Hay moved to approve the request for New Site Plan approval to construct a 6,436 square foot restaurant and related site improvements on Out Lot #1 of the Boynton Town Center site. Ms. Jaskiewicz seconded the motion that passed 5-0. VIII. Other Not addressed. IX. Comments by Members Not addressed. x. Adjournment Since there was no further business before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~" /~ /y;/ ,. <.::-=V:?dll ~L / Susan Collins Recording Secretary (072606) 24