Loading...
Minutes 02-22-00 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2000 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Lee Wische, Chairman Pat Frazier Mike Friedland Woodrow Hay Steve Myott Larry Finkelstein, Voting Alternate Robert Ensler, Voting Alternate Quintus Greene, Director of Development Mike Cirullo, Assistant City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Di~"ector Hanna Matras. Economic ResearchlAna[yst Lusia Galav, Senior Planner ABSENT J. Stanley Dub6, Vice Chair Maurice Rosenstock 1. Pledge Of Allegiance Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. Introduction of the Board Members Chairman Wische introduced the board members, and Mike Cirullo, Mike Rumpf, Lusia Galav, Quintus Greene, and Hanna Matras. Chairman Wische also introduced Mayor and Mrs. Jerry Broening, Commissioner Ron Weiland and Assistant City Manager, Dale Sugerman. / | Chairman Wische instructed Assistant City Attorney Cirullo to administer tt~e oath to all aersons who would be testifying tonight. 3. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Finkelstein seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 22, 2000 4. Approval of Minutes Motion Mr. Friedland moved to approve the minutes of the February 8, 2000 Motion seconded by Mr. Finkelstein, which carried unanimously. 5. Communications and Announcements None 7. meeting. Planning and Zoning Report 1. Final disposition of February 8, 2000 Planni Development Board Meeting agenda items. Mr. Rumpf reported on the results of the February Commission Meeting as follows: (a) Grove Plaza common area request for new approval to the Master Plan was approved. (b) The two Wal-kMart abandonments were appro (c) The BAPS Temple abandonment was approve~ ~g and 5, 2000 ite plan ~d. Old Business (d) was withdrawn. Mr. Rumpf announced that the next meeting of the I and Development Meeting, which was originally sche~ March 14th, will be held on Thursday, March 16th d[ elections. The David Chafin rear set back variance apblication ~lanning uled for .~ to the Stephanie RoSs (withdrawn) Stephanie Ross 2 New Business. A. PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Code Variance 1. Project Name: Agent: MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February22,2000 Owner: Location: Description: David J. Ross 137 East Woolbright Road Request relief from Chapter 21 Signs, Article IV, Section 2, req?ring a minimum ten foot side setl~ack to allow an 8 1/2 foot front setback or a 2 1/2 foot side setback variance to erect a directional sign. Chairman Wische inquired if any further action was needed on this item and Assistant City Attorney Cirullo responded there was none. B. SUBDIVISION Notice Of Proposed Change/Master Plan Modification Project Name: Agent: Location: Description: QUANTUM PARK DRI Amendment #10 Winston Lee & Associates, inc. Quantum Park Request to amend the previously approved PID master plan in connection with an amendment to the DRI as follows: Change the master plan la designation of lots 3 and Office/Industrial to Industrial Use and 40 from Office/Indust Governmental and Institutional 50B from Office/Industrial to In lots 59, 60, 61 and 6; Office/Industrial to Mixed Use; lot 65A, 65B, 66, 67A, 67B and 6; Office/Industrial/Commercial to Use; lots 76, 81 and 8; Office/Industrial to Office/Inc d use from lots 39 iai to Ise; lot lustrial; from 63, 64, ~ from Mixed from ustrial/ Commercial use; lots 83, 84, 85, 86~ 87 and 88 from Office/Industrial/Attraction and Recreation to Mixed Use; and lot .~1 from Office/Industrial/Commercial to A[traction and Recreation Use. Chairman Wische announced that discussion should be limited to dettermine whether the request is a substantial change or a minor change and note~l this is not a site plan. Chairman Wische requested that the agent take the podium. MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 22, 2000 Attorney David Norris took the podium and stated he would be representing the applicant. Chairman Wische said that there were 11 staff comments and requested Attorney Norris to refer only the comments to which they do not agree with or would like clarification on. Attorney Norris stated there were six comments that they disagreed with and further stated that three of the comments have already been complied ~vhich are Comments #3, fl-4 and #5. Chairman Wische read Comment #3. Comment #3 referred to Note ~_ which required the applicant to submit a letter describing all proposed dhanges. Chairman Wische asked staff to comment on this. Ms. Lusia Galav, Senior Planner responded and stated that Note 2 has been changed to define the intensities of land uses with the maximum approvall and the applicant has resubmitted their maximum approvals as requested by the I~egional Planning Council. Therefore, that has been done, but ha~ not been changed on the Master Plan. With regarC to Comment ~ the Notice of Proposed Change Document ~(NOPC) Ms. Galav stated their application has been corrected. With regard to Comment #5, Ms. Galav said she has not received a revised Master Plan sheet. Mr. Norris clarified this and said it was Comment #6,, not that the applicant feels has already been done. Ms. Galav replied that Comment #6 has partially complied, but has n~)t been completed Ms. Galav said that the applicant's traffic consultant, Kal.hart M. Pinder, received a fax from staff last Thursday which requested additional information that the City's traffic consultant, McMahon & Associates has requested to complete their rewew. Mr. Norris said they feel they provided all the information required and have submitted information to show what the impact of the amendments would I~ave on the traffic count, as opposed to what was originally approved. Mr. Norris said they provided an analysis of what the trips will be based upon compared ~to what wa~ originally approved. The traffic study shows that the project wilJ not lexceed the approved trips. Ms. Galav said that staff disagrees and that amendment #8 to the Develbpment Order requires that any time the DO is changed, a traffic study will be su.~mitted by the al~piicant and reviewed by an independent traffic consultant, which the applicant agreed to. The City's independent traffic consultant has requested 4 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 22, 2000 additional information. Also, Ms. Galav pointed out that there are two parts to the review. One part of the review is to determine whether in fact the appli~cant has surpassed the traffic generated by the proposed changes andiwhether the traffic will be increased. Secondly, there is a requirement to determine if there would be additional regional impacts by the type of traffic being generate(~. This is necessary so that staff can make the final NOPC substantial ~leviation determination. Staff feels that the applicant has not responded! in full to this requirement. Attorney Norris reiterated that they have provided the requested data and the approved trips will not be exceeded. Mr. Kahart Pinder, a traffic consultant with Pinder-Troutman, 2324 S. Congress Avenue~ West Palm Beach, Florida took the podium and stated that under Florida Statutes a substantial deviation would reqmre al least! a 15% increase in traffic volume over and above which W~hS originally reviewed Mr Pindar stated that they provided a table on January 11 , which indicated tl~at there would be 15 daily trips less and that there would be substantially no increase in traffic. Also, peak hour a.m. and p.m. trip generation was provided on February 2, 2000, which showed substantial decreases in peak hour volumes. Ms. Galav replied that the City's traffic consultant has problems with the r~umbers generated by Mr. Pinder. Ms. Galav stated it was the City's con~sultant's responsibility to approve their methodology in terms of trip generation land trip distribution and assignment, which means that the City's traffic consultant has found some discrepancies in the applicant's analysis. Chairman Wische noted that the applicant's traffic consultant provided facts and figures indicating they are going below the ca p. Ms. Galav stated that staff is also I(~oking at regional impact and traffic distribution, which is different for the Uifferent uses being proposed. Chairman Wische asked if this has been submitted to the Treasure Coastland the Department of Community Affairs and Ms. Galav said that staff has redeived a letter from the FDOT and they are requiring additional information. Chairman Wische asked what the concerns of the FDOT were and M~. Galav responded that the FDOT is not concerned about the City's traffic and thatlit is the City's responsibility. The FDOT is just reviewing the applicant's data. 5 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 22, 2000 Chairman Wische felt that staff was over-scrutinizing the data and that this project is one of the best projects to be brought into the City and he is in favor of the project. Chairman Wische gave a history of the property and noted that the pro,pierty has been sitting almost idle for 12 years and the project being proposed tonigl~t is a 67 acre project worth over $100 million. Chairman Wische responded thiat if the project were delayed, it would not happen at all. Mr. Pinder reviewed the comments contained in the City's consultant's letter and noted that the Consultant disagreed with the tdp generation for office use and said there would be a difference of an additional 171 trips during the a.m. pea,'k hours. Mr. Pinder replied that their trip generation indicates that there would be 2,~.00 Jess trips than what was approVed~ The City's consultant noted that p.m. peak hours would generate 168 additional trips. Mr. Pinder said their analysis sh~)ws that there will be 700 less trips than what was approved. Mr. Pinder said the ¢.roject is well below the allowable tdp generation cap. Chairman Wische said the Board must determine if there is a substantiaI change or minor change. Chairman Wische felt that the applicant has demonstrated that there is no substantial deviation. Mr. Friedland asked about thetimeframe of the project and Ms. Galav saidtthat the timeframe for the project is as follows: · The City Commission is holding a special meeting on Tuesday, February 29, 2000 for first reading of the Ordinance. · The second reading of the Ordinance will be March 7, 2000, which will be the public hearing for the project. Mr. Myott asked why staff needed more information since staff has already received the information that nothing ~s going to be substantially changed? Mr Myott questioned why the comment could not be eliminated. Mr. Myot~ Curthe~ asked if this requirement was contained in Amendment No. 8 and Ms~. Galav replied that the requirement for the traffic study and analysis is in Amendment #8. Attorney Norris acknowleoged this and restated they have provided the traffic analysis. Assistant City Attorney Cirullo pointed out that it is the City Commission that would make the decision on whether there is a substantial deviation and t~e City Commission may want this additional information. Chairman Wische agreed with this. Attorney Norris stated that the conditions to which they do not agree are as follows: 6 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 22, 2000 Condition #2 is a condition that should be dealt with during the site plan approval process. Also, the applicant feels that they have already provided most of this information. Mr. Rumpf pointed out that this is a comment generated by the TRC Division and is a standard comment for a master plan modification. Chairman Wische asked if staff is insisting that this be provided now or Wait until site plan approval? Mr. F~umpf replied that the information is being requested at this stage and that a cover letter is standard for a master plan modification. Mr. Myott inquired if staff were looking for specific changes or general statements regarding changes? Mr. Rumpf re~)lied more on the general line. M~. Myott su~jgested that the app icant prepare a short etter in order to satisfy this comment. Attorney Norris restated his position on this comment that the information has already been furnished. Mr. Rumpf stated he would not insist on this comment being satisfied at tllis time. Therefore, there was a consensus on the Board that comment #2 be rejeoted. Comment #9 deals with the approval of the Master Plan Modificatio~ being contingent upon a finding of no substantial deviation by the City and the applicant must provide additional information before this determination is made. A{Iso, the comment requires that the traffic information and deviation chart be provided. Attorney Norris said they do not agree that the approval should be contingent upon a finding of no substantial deviation and actually that is what the ajaplicant is seeking, i With regard to the traffic analysis, Attorney Norris pointed out that this hud been previously discussed and feels this is an inappropriate waste of time. Attorney Norris pointed out that Mr. Gerlica, the project engineer, actually did prepare a chart and Attorney Norris offered to submit the chart. Chairman Wische asked staff if submission of the chart would satii requirement of this comment. Ms. Galav said that she would have to rev~ chart. Mr. Myott inquired why this hadn't been furnished previously and Attorne said they felt it was not necessary and was a waste of time. ;fy the ew the Norris Chairman Wische asked the agent if each time there was an amendmenI to the MaSter plan, a traffic stUdy was furnished and Attorney Norris said that was correct. Ms. Galav pointed out that the traffic information is different f~om the MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 22, 2000 substantial deviation chart and is a requirement of Chapter 380. A Notice of Proposed Change Application has to be done for every amendment. M.~. Galav stated that this has not been provided and said that DCA concurred that the chart must be provided. Chairman Wische requested that the chart be provided to staff. Attorney' Norris said that Mr. Gerlica could present the chart and has provided the necessary information for amendment #10. Attorney Norris stated that this chart ~vas not required previously and the last time it was rec~ uired was for amendment ff~3. Mr. Eugene Gerlica, Mock-Ross and Associates, 5720 Corporate Way', West Palm Beach, took the and' stated he had researched the DRI before the[current owners purchased the property and assisted Mr. McDonald with the ap]~l cation for amendment #9. Mr. Gorilla gave a history of the DRI and stated thle char[ presents a percent change ~n the different land use categories versus the original. Mr. Gerlica further pointed out that the 10th amendment changes the ~creage designated for office use by only 5% from the original and the square ,~oota~e went down 50%. Mr. Gerlica contended that the changes would really t~ave no regional impact and therefore did not think the chart was necessary. Mr.~Gedica distributed a copy of the chart to Ms. Galav as well as to the Recording Secretary who has placed the original with the minutes of this meeting. Attorney Cirullo requested that a copy be furnished as backup information to each of the Commissioners. Attorney Norris inquired if the submission of the chart satisfied Comment Ms. Galav said that it has to be reviewed. Attorney Norris said this wouk a delay and that staff has had this information to make this determination. Attorney Cirullo pointed out that the condition provides that a chart be pf What staff does with the chart is for staff to determine. However, for clari~ comment #9 has three sub-parts, and therefore submission of the ch~ satisfies one part of the comment. ~9 and create )vided. cation, rt only Chairman Wische asked Ms, Galav when staff could have these issues resolved? Ms. Galav replied that staff s committed to the meeting dates and will present their revised staff report on those meeting dates as the information is received. Ms. Galav also stated that staff is still waiting for informatidm and response from the DCA and the Regional Planning Council, which are ~ue by this Friday. This information will be presented to the Commission at that time and the Commission on March 7th wilJ have to determine whether thls is a substantial deviation. 8 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 22, ~000 Mr. Myott felt it would be reasonable to remove this comment. Ms. Galav said staff is looking at this as two separate reviews, Mr. Fdedland asked Mr. Pinder if he has provided work to the City pre~,iously? Mr. Pinder stated that he worked for the City during the Visions 20/20 ¢.lanning and presentations. Mr. Friedland felt that Mr. Pinder's work was well received. Mr. Friedland also asked when the high school was taken out of the composite of land for Quantum Park, did a substantial change question on this usage arise? Mr. Gerlica replied that when the school was approved, there was a n~otice of proposed change and traffic analysis was performed and it was determir~ed that 50 acres of government/institution land was not a substantial deviation. Attorney Norris inquired if the chart condition of Comment #9 has been ~et. Ms. Galav stated she was going to use the chart to make a determination under comment #5, but the condition to furnish the chart has been met. Attorney Norris stated that the contingency and approval for finding a substantial deviation is part of the approval and should not be a condition. Ms. Gala~agreed to take this out and will reiterate this to the Commission. The determination of the traffic analysis will be handled in the same manner. Attorney Norris read Comment #10 that states that approval of the Master Plan is contingent upon the approval of a text amendment to the Comprehensi~ve Plan to permit residential use in the industrial land use category. Attorney Norris said that there should be no text amendment required and that the Comprehensive Plan does provide for residential but staff feels it does apply to this situation. Attorney Norris felt that if staff did not like the wording in the Comprehens'~ve Plan this is something the City should address and not tie it into this application~. Mr. Rumpf replied that if the report is construed to mean that the Comprehensive Plan allows residential land uses within industrial land use classificationS, it is a poor choice of wording. Mr. Rumpf recited the definition of industrial I~nd use classification as stated in Policy 16.1 of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rulmpf did not feel that the land use distribution analysis included any assumptions~or data for residential to be assumed in those land uses. Mr. Rumpf also stated that the Zoning Code prohibits residential uses in the industrial use classification. If the City is in favor of this amendment, the Comprehensive Plan should be amended, but Mr. Rumpf did not feet it was staff's responsibility. MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February22, 2000 Mr. Norris said if this were required it would result in delays and felt that the development would not happen. Mr. Norris felt the analysis was improper and the Comprehensive Plan does address residential. Mr. Norris said that clarification of the language was the City's responsibility. Mr. Myott felt that the way the proposed residential is cited within Quantum Park that it will work. However, he understands the City's position that it does not want to see residential placed in other industrial lands in the City. Mr. Myott asked if there could be a way to confine this to the Quantum Park PID. Mr. Winston Lee, 7114 Washington Road, West Palm Beach took theipodium and stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan is its ruling document. I~eferring to the different uses listed un(Jer "industrial", it also includes stacking ahd read the uses allowed. Mr. Lee noted the Zoning Code does not allow tEis and, therefore, the Zoning Code is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Lee said the zoning ordinance should apply to PIDs of 500 acres or greater. Mr. Lee stated that mixed use is allowed in the Comprehensive Plan and read the applicable section of the Plan. Mr. Lee requested that the applicant be allowed to move forward and that staff could address the Code. Chairman Wische stated that Comment #10 should be rejected sit, ce the applicant has shown the Board in writing that this is allowed. Mr. Rumpf said that there is a double reference and this Board relies upop staff's interpretation of zoning codes, land development regulations, comprehensive plans, etc. and Mr. Rumpf said that staff presents consistent interpretation and would not have brought this forward if it had no merit. Mr. Friedland felt that this Board over the years has been in 99% agreement with staff. Mr. Rumpf felt this could open up the entire Park to the possibility of additional residential land uses and there could be ramifications to this, as wel as ~,ossible fiscal impact to the City. Chairman Wische said that he discussed this subject with Mr. Greene and Mr. Sugerman and the way to deal with this is to not allow the applicant to b6ild any more residential within the Park. Mr. Derek VanderPIoeg, 155 East Boca Raton Road, Boca Raton, Florida took the podium stated he is a planner and an architect and his firm was ihvolved in Mizner Park. Mr. VanderPIoeg stated that many municipalities in the State of Florida have mixed use developments. He pointed out that tonight th(~ Board was addressing DRI issues and to determine if this was a substantial deviation by placing a residential component into this DRI. Mr. VanderPIoeg fee all the remaining issues were zoning issues and individual site plan approval issues and 10 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February22, 2000 pointed out that this lis a 1984 DRI. In today's world, DCA would probably mandate some housing element within the DRI. Chairman Wische felt that the applicant showed that this is permitte¢ in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Myott inquired if there was a consensus on the Board that the Board to limit the residential component being proposed and Chairman Wisch( that the applicant agreed to this. Attorney Norris felt that this should be further dealt with on the next agend Chairman Wische opened up the Public Hearing and asked if; wished to address the issue. Hearing none, Chairman Wische cio., public hearing. There were no further questions from members of the Board and C~ Wische called for a motion. ranted stated ~ item. nyone the ~irman Mr. Friedland said he was prepared to make a motion, but was in nleed of assistance because of all the changes. Chairman Wische asked if the Recording Secretary could assist. Assistant City Attorney Cirullo was uncertain w~at the F~ecording Secretary could read back since he was not certain of the consensus on the E~oard. The Board is aware of what has been objected to and the Imotion has to take into account whether the Board agrees with the applicant pr with staff. Chairman Wische said he intended to ask for a consensus from the beginning and therefore suggested that each Comment should be I stated individually. ~ · I It was determined to address each Comment individually in order to mco~'porate them into the motion. Comment #2 is rejected. Comment #3 has been provided. Comment ~ staff agreed this has been provided and the comn ent is rejected. Comment #5 has been agreed to by the applicant. Comment #6, dealing with the requested traffic analysis, has been provided and Chairman Wische polled the members on this Comment. The Comment passed 5-2 (Messrs. Myott and Finkelstein dissenting) Comment #9 is rejected. Comment #10 was rejected, but the following language will be added by stating that it will be limited to 500 units within Quantum Park." 11 MEETING MIN LITES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 22, 2000 Motion Mr. Friedland moved to approve the request by Quantum Park to amend the previously approved PID Master Plan in connection with an amendment to the DRI as follows: Change the master plan land use designation of lots 3 and i 6 from Office/Industrial to Industrial use; lots 39 and 40 from Office/Indtistrial to Governmental and Institutional Use; lot 50B from Office/Industrial to Industrial; lots 59, 60, 6t and 62 from Office/IndUstrial to Mixed Use, lots 63, 64, 65A, 65~B., 66, 67A, 67B and 67C from Office/Industrial/Comm~rciaI to Mixed Use; lots 76, 81 and 82 from Office/Indusl~ial to officellndusfi'iallCommercial use;' lots 83, 84, 85, 86, 87 and ~8 from office/Industrial/Attraction and Recreation to Mixed Use; and lot t.91 from Office/IndustdallCommercial to Attraction and Recreation Use, which is not bject to all staff commen~ minus COmmeRts Motion Motion carried 7-0. C. CODE REVIEW. Project Name: RESIDENTIAL ATTRACTION, RECREATIONAL AND MIXED USES IN THE PID ZONING DISTRICT Agent: Winston Lee & Associates, Inc. Description: Request to amend Chapter 2, Zoning, Sections 7.E and 7.F to allow re~sidential attraction, recreational, and mixed uses (Residential/Commercial) with ih the Planned Industrial Development~ Zoning District. Attorney Norris remained at the podium. Chairman Wische noted there w~re three staff comments. Attorney Norris noted that staff recommended approval ~ubject to the Comprehensive Plan being amended and this has already been dealt ~vith. Comment #1 restricts the residential development to multi-family as defined and regulated in the R-3 Zoning District. Attorney Norris said that R-3 Zoning is not appropriate in a PID. Attorney Norris stated that the 500 residential unit r~striction previously adopted addresses this concern and the applicant has agreed to the limitation of 500 units. 12 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEV~ELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February22,2000 Mr. Doug McDonald of MFT Development assumed the podium and felt this issue should be dealt with during site plan approval. Mr. Rumpf inquired what the applicant was objecting to and was it merely ~density. Mr. Lee stated that the R-3 regulations do not fit and the minimum lot size, is 4,000 square feet and that no commercial businesses could be connected. Therefore, this does not apply in this situation. Mr. Rumpf stated that staff feels that some type of regulat ons s required ~and they are dealing with something they cannot picture, d(~fine or regulate. Chairman Wische stated that there are different ways to deal with density. Mr. Rumpf stated that staff views this similar to a PUD and did not want td make a reference to a PUD because he would have to make some exceptions a~nd there are strict treatment of commercial uses in a PUD. Mr. McDonald said that they have always tried to cooperate with the ,City and updated the Board on all the new projects that have been brought into the Park since they took over. Almost everything in Quantum Park has now belen sold. What was created in 1986 is not relevant in the year 2000 and Boynton Beach is changing. Mr. McDonald noted that Gateway Boulevard has been long ovgrlooked. Mr. Rumpf stated that what is needed at this time is the acknowledgerrtent that future code amendments may be necessary. Attorney Norris said that this could be an artificial restriction on the app iqant and that this is not the time to dea with these types of restrictions. Att~)rne~/ Norris stated that the specifics should be dealt with during the site plan approval process. Attorney Norris requested that the Board reject Comment #1. Mr. Quintus Greene assumed the podium and stated that staff is willing to concede that the current ordinances are inadequate and are ready to agree to allow the project subject to subsequent ordinance revisions in general. Mr. Greene stated that staff does not want to give the applicant carte blanche to do whatever they want, but does recognize that the City's ordinances are inadequate and are prepared to work with the applicant to come up with ordinances that weuld be appropriate. Attorney Norris did not want to agree that the project would be subject to subsequent code amendments. Assistant City Attorney Cirullo noted that when a site plan is developed the bode is in place. Without some direction to develop the code, Assistant City A~ttorney 13 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February22,2000 Ciruilo is concerned about staff's ability to review it or for this Board to approve or reject it without some kind of guidance. Mr. Greene said creating a situation where an applicant can pick and chdose from existing provisions in the current ordinances must be avoided. Mr. Greer~e stated staff is prepared to work with the applicant to modify the ordinances. Mr. Lee stated that they could live with the PID and felt that R-3 zoni.ng is not applicable. Mr. Lee felt that there was security in p ace with existing development regulations and they are not asking to be unrestricted. Mr. Greene pointed out that the only way that residential gets into a PID i~i through R-3. Without the R-3 there would be no residential in PIb. Therefore, t~e nature of the development being proposed needs to be addressed and f~hen the ordinances could be adjusted accordingly. Mr. Lee did not agree with Mr. Greene'S comments and stated that PIDs common y have office, retail and commercial uses. Mr. Rumpf stated that residential is allowed within the local retail, commercial land use designation subject to the R-3 regulations and that the R-3 regulatior~s would not work. Mr. Rumpf said that the Board needs to recognize at this po~nt~ in time, whether the Board wants to forego staff comments and assume in the w~rst case that the City would be responsible for making adjustments and not I~old the app cant responsible to make those adjustments in the future. In either event, adjustments in the Code will have to be made. Mr. Friedland felt it would be unfair to force these restrictions on the applicant and feels these restrictions should be eliminated. Mr. Friedland noted ~at Mr. McDonald and the City have worked well in the past and this practice~ should continue. Chairman Wische said he could not understand staff's position on the project. Mr. Myott said that the R-3 does not work in Comment #1 and there cannot be mixed use in R-3. Therefore, Comment #1 needs to be amended to allow mixed use to occur and wording should be added to the effect "restrict the residential development to multi-family units not to exceed 500 units and subject to future site plan approvals". Therefore, Comment #1 will read as follows: "To restrict the residential development to multi-familY unitslnot exceed 500 units and subjeCt to future site plan approvals," to 14 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February22, 2[000 Mr. Rumpfpointed outthatan ordinance needsto be generated that wouB amend the zoning code. Mr. Myott suggested that this process begin at once so that it would be ready when the site plan comes back for approval. Attorney Norris requested that language be added to Comment #1 to state "allowing for a mixed use development". Therefore, Comment #1 would read as follows: "To restrict the residential development to multi-family unit~ not to exceed 500 units and subject to future site plan approvals, allowing for mixed use development." Mr. Rumpf stated that the Master Plan already stipulates that the re~idential element would only be allowed in this PID and does not need to be in thb Zoning Code. Attorney Norris requested that Comment #2 be eliminated and should not be tied to their application which could potentially slow down the project. Mr. Rumpf stated that these statements would go forward in the ordinance and there are two or three different locations in the PID zoning district that imply the character to make it consistent. Mr. Friedland said he would be amenable to removing Comment #2. Mr. Myott inquired what the repercussions of number #2 would have upon the applicant and Attorney Norris replied '~vait". After discussion, it was debided to eliminate Comment #2. Attorney Norris stated that Comment #3 should be part of the approval arid not a condition of approval. Mr. Myott noted that this is already stated in the agenda as Item 7 C. ' Chairman Wische opened up the public hearing. Since there was no one who wished to speak, Chairman Wische closed the public hearing. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve the request to amend Chapter 2 Zoning S~ect ons 7.E and 7.F. to alow residenta, attraction, recreational and mixe~l uses (Residential/Commercial) within the Planned Industrial Development]Zoning district, limiting the number of units to 500, allowing for mixed-use develc~pment. Motion seconded oy Mr. Hay. 15 MEETING MINUTES PLANN lNG & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February22,2000 Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Wische called for a recess at 9:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:20 p.m. C. SITE PLANS New Site Plan Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Majestic Greeting Card Lenny Siegal Tri-Star Building Corp. DSLA Realty Company Southeast corner of High Ridge Road and Commerce Road Request site plan appro~,al to construct a 43,651 square footI2-story printing/warehouse/office facility on 2.97 acres. Mr. John Vaughan, of George F. White and Associates, 5455 North Federal Highway, Suite F, Boca Raton, Florida took the podium Chairman Wische noted that there were 31 staff comments and asked the ~gent to address only those comments to which they do not agree with or need clarification. Mr. Vaughan said that the applicant agreed to all staff comments, Chairman Wische opened up the public hearing. Since there was no one who wished to speak, Chairman Wische closed the public headng. Motion I Mr. Hay moved to approve the request for site plan approval to construct a 43,651 square foot 2-story printing/warehouse/office facility on 2.97 acres, subject to all staff comments. Motion seconded by Ms. Frazier.. Motion carried 7-0. 8. Other None 16 MEETING MINUTES PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA February 22, 2,600 None 9. Comments by members Mr. Hay moved to adjourn. Motion seconded by Ms. Frazier. properly adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, The Barbara M. Madden Recording Secretary (two tapes) 17 neeting SUBSTANT/AL DEVIATION DETERMINATION CHART Residentia' md Recreatio eats N/A 0 4,500 Lot 9t Lot 62-88 6.55 0 Nots No.: ~.099 0 ,935 N/A See Note No 20916 834 N/A 1,142 164.9 Acres N/A See Note No 7,301 18,001 3.408 lumber of I Units 500 0 I Units 0 --Lots N/A N/A N/A __ N/A N/A See Note No 5 0 -- 0 N/A Total Note Rental Units 27.6 Note No N/A 7,168 N/A N~ 3,934 200 200 N/A NIA N/A N/A 1.740 1,740 55.90 3 N/A 0 N/A 20,241 2O0 N/A N/A Movie -I tc e Theater 2/1; ~L~ched /1'1/2000, , Attached /1 712000 dated 1/11/200C, 2Jl 7/2000 See Commercial Use Classification Summary Attached exclude Hotel area at 1 roor~ =268 SF (prev ous DO threshold was 426,888 Jtman Letters datso 1/11/2000. 2/17/2000 SF increases to include Lots 39 and 40 this NOPC SUBSTANTIAL DEVL~TION DETEIEVI1NATION CHART Number of Employees/Students 2,'~-~"~nnnnnnnnn~ ~ ~ -- /oral VehiCle Tnps, (See Note~=~-~-'~o ~ ~ ~ = 2,500 __ __ Sit. Parkand Open S ace ~ ~ ~ ~ Lakes 50 3 Footnotes~ ~ mje~ external trj generation will be I~ss than ~he re o~d total vehicle trips here~ainin~260~itsareshoW~ona rox~mat61 t3', INDUSTRIAL USE CLASSIFICATION VELOPMENT ORDER STATU (ACRES} CHANGE BUILDING ~ ~ ROM PREVIOUROM ORIGINAL (%) QUARE FOOTAGE (%) (%) Original ADA 254.70 Amendment No. 1 197.60 Amendment No. 2 199.30 Amendment No. 3 199.30 Amendment No. 4 199.30 Amendment No. 5 199.30 Amendment No. 6 199.30 Amendment No. 7 199.30 Amendment No. 8 (See Note 1) 182.67 Amendment No. 9 (See Note 1) 182.67 Amendment No. 10 (See Note 1) 209.16 4,183,750 -22.4 -22.4 4,183,750 0.0 0.0 0.9 -21.8 4,183,750 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.8 4,183,750 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.8 4,183,750 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.8 4,183,750 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.8 4,183,750 0.0 0.0 0.0 -21.8 4,183,750 0.0 0.0 -8.3 -28.3 2,784,354 -33.4 -33.4 0.0 -28.3 2,784,354 0.0 -33.4 14.5 -17.9 2,275,354 -18.3 -45.6 NOTES: i The acreage shown is a maximum determined by adding all use classifications it~luding an Industrial Designation (e.g., O.OI, OIC amd OII-B FEBRUARY 21 2000 QLPLGNCS/99004.1 l/SS01 EGJH.EXL OFFICE USE CLASSIFICATION ERC~.~_g~=~_A_G~ ~ ~ PERCENTAGE GROss AREA _ ROM PREVIOUS ROM ORIGINA ~ ~ FROM ORIGINAL EVELOPM]~NT ORDER STATUS {ACRES) L~ {_~ SOUARE FOOTAGE ~ (%) Origami ADA 128.9 Amendment No. I 133.1 Amendmem No. 2 133.7 Amendment No. 3 133.7 Amendment No. 4 133.7 Amendment No. 5 133.7 Amendment No. 6 133.7 Amendment No. 7 133.7 Amendment No. 8 (See Note 1) 220.2 Amendmem No. 9 (See Note 1) 220.2 Amendment No. 10 (See Note 1) 136.2 1,969,500 3.3 3.3 1,969,500 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.7 1.969,500 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1,969,500 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1,969,500 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1,969,500 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1,969,500 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 1,969,500 0.0 0.0 64.7 70.8 1.685,772 -14,4 -14.4 0.0 70.8 1,685.772 0.0 -14.4 -38.2 5.6 958,772 -43.1 -51.3 NOTES: 1 The acreage shown 1s a maximum determined by adding all use classifications including an Office Designation (e.g. 0.0I, OIC amd OIH) FEBRUARY 21 2000 QLPLGNCS/99004.11/8801EGJH.EXL COMMERCIAL USE DESIGNATION SUMMARY ~ ~ _FROM:ORIGINAL EVELOPMENT ORDER STATUS ~ L~ ~ PERCENTAGE pERCENTAGE C NGE SOUARE FOOTAGE (%) Original ADA 27.6 Amendment No. 1 30.4 Amendmem No. 2 29.7 Amendmem No. 3 29.7 Amendment No. 4 29.7 Amendment No. 5 29.7 Amendment No. 6 29.7 Amendment No. 7 47.0 Amendment No. 8 (See Note 1) 47.0 ,Mnendment No. 9 (See Note 1) 47.0 Amendment No. 10 (See Note 2) 99.5 300.000 10.1 I0.1 300,000 0.0 0.0 -2.3 7.6 300,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 300.000 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 300,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 300,000 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 300,000 0.0 0.0 58.2 70.3 373.288 24.4 24.4 0.0 70.3 373.288 0.0 24.4 0.0 70.3 373,288 0.0 24.4 111.6 260.4 675,168 80.9 125.1 NOTES: [. The acreage shown is a maximum determined by adding all use classificatiom including a Commercial Designation (e.g., COMM, OIC, OIH and MU) 2. The Building Square Footage shown above does no, include the hotel area calculated at 268 SF per room. ssOlegjheagl, 2/21/00, 10:28 PM