Minutes 12-01-97 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
ON MONDAY, DECEMBER 1,1997, AT 7:00 P.M.
PRESENT
Lee Wische, Chairma~
Jos~ Aguila
J. Stanley Dub~
Pat Frazier
Mike Friedland
Maurice Rosenstock
Steve Myott, Alternate (Voting Member)
James Reed, Alternate (Non-Voting Member)
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Tambri Heyden. Planning & Zoning
Director
Michael Pawe[czyk. Asst. Ci :y Attorney
Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., and ted the Pledge of ~
the Flag.
2. INTRODUCTION OF MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS AND BOARD MEMBER,~
Chairman Wische introduced the Board members the Assistant City Attorney, the
Zoning Director. and the Recording Secretary.
3. AGENDA APPROVAL
Mr. Dub~ moved to approve the agenda. Mr. Aguila seconded the motion
unanimously.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Aguila moved to approve the minutes of the November 12, 1997 meeting.
seconded the motion that carried unanimously.
5. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Report from the Planning and Zoning Department
1. Final disposition of last meeting's agenda items
legiance to
~lannJng &
carried
Mr. Dub6
Ms. Heyden reminded the members that East Ridge PUD was discussed at the las1 Planning &
Development Board meeting. Due to a change in the City's procedure, the applica on has not
yet gone before the City Commission. It is on the City Commission agenda for ton )rrow night
(December 2. 1997). Ms. Heyden explained that in an effort to allow the City Corr missioners
time to review items addressed by the Planning & Development Board, the City M~nager has
changed the process by which these items are moved forward to the City CommisSion. Items
addressed by the Planning & Development Board will' not be forwarded to the City ~ommission
at their next meeting. Those items wilt be part of the following City Commission agedda.
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 1, 1997
6. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Set joint Board, Commission and Chamber of Commerce Workshop date' to
discuss the community design plan, convenience store lightin~ Ilevels and
Commission ratification of Boar~l actions -
Ms. Heyden announced that this workshop would be held on Monday, December ~, 1997 at
6:00 p.m. It is currently scheduled for Conference Room "C". However Ms. ~-leyden will
attem pt to change the meeting place to the Library Program Room since she will be able to
make use of their slide projection equipment for her presentation. Board members Nill receive
back-up information on Thursday, and the location of the meeting will be indica :ed on the
agenda.
Mr. Dub6 advised that he would be going out of town on Thursday morning. H requested
delivery of his back-up material on Wednesday. Ms. Heyden said the agendaP~ ~ets would
not be ready on Wednesday. She will forward partial materials if they are available.
Chairman Wische acknowledged the ~3resence in the audience of Bulent Kastarlak ~)irector of
Development
B. Business Community Design of the Quarter Award conc, (to be
discussed by Board member Jos~ Aguila)
Motion
Mr. Aguila'moved that we send a recommendation to the City Commission for con deration of
ihis program. Mr. Rosenstock seconded the motion that carried unanimously.
7. NEW BUSINESS:
A. PUBLIC HEARING
Zoning Code Variance
1.Project: Harry Woodworth
Agent/Owner: Harry Woodworth
Location: 685 NE 15~n Place
Description: F~eq uest for a variance to Chapter 2 - Zon g, Section
4.J.1 Fence Height of the Boynton B, ach Land
Development Regulations which restrict fence h~ights to 6'
for fences located within the required s~tbacks of
residential properties to allow a 4' high fencelon a 3' 6"
retaining wall: ~
Attorney Pawelczyk administered the oath to all that would be testifying on any item on this
agenda.
CHAIRMAN 'WISCHE ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE
PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION.
2
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 1, 1997
Harry Woodworth, property owner, recently received a Certificate of Occu panc~
home he built at 685 NE 15TM P~ace. In order to complete the landscaping and finish
a fence is needed along the north boundary. This property has a 220' common bor(
Seaview Trailer Park. Mr. Woodworth's request is to put a fence along that pr
However, the Code only allows a 2' high fence on top of cinder blocks.- This will not
toddler or offer security. Mr. Woodwor~h asked for consideration of his request to ~
construct a 4' fence along the rear of his property.
Motion
Mr. Dub6 moved that we APPROVE the request for a variance to Chapter 2 - Zon
for a new
:he project,
ler with the
)perty line.
contain his
Ilow him to
lg, Section
4.J.1 - Fence Height of the Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations which
heights to 6' for fences located within the required Setbacks of residential properties
high fence on a 3' 6" retaining wall Ms. Frazier seconded the motionthat carried uni
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Via Lugano - Melear PUD
Donaldson Hearing
Gene and Click Management
Southwest comer of Congress Avenue and
Drive
Request for a variance to Chapter 2. Section
Boynton Beach Land Development Regulation.·
construction of a 5' high decorative fence
sections within the 40' front yard setback of 23'
CHAIRMAN WISCHE ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WA~
PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION.
Donaldson Hearing, Cottler and Hearing, 1070 East Indiantown Road, Jupit
was present and introduced Tom Cavanaugh of PAC Land Development,
Engineer. and Robert Cottler. Landscape Architect.
Mr. Hearing explained that this variance is relative to the height of fencing ane
bollards along the Congress Avenue frontage for this project. The Code allows a m;
6' high fence, walt. or hedge. However, when this feature is within the front yard
maximum height is limited to 4' The request for a variance is based on the f(
reasons:
1. The front setback of this fence treatment is 20' from the right-of-way.
When this PUD was originally developed the master developer dedicated easemenl
the City for sewer mains and water mains. Therefore, this fence would have to be s~
This is an aesthetic treatment. There will be a series of fence
bollards at the end of each fence section.
rE strict fence
) allow a 4'
tnimously.
andalwood
l.J.1 of the
to allow for
nd column
I1'.
NO ONE
r, Florida,
;e Scorer.
associated
xlmum of a
etback, the
lowing two
; in favor of
:back 20'.
ctions with
Using the exhibits that depicted the front entrance. Mr. Hearing indicated the fence
applicant is proposing a 5' white picket fence with 5' columns and 2'-4 3/8" finials at
3
~ction. The
ends of
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 1, 1997
each section. This treatment is not a buffer wall or security fence. It is an aesthetic edge
treatment to the landscaping that will be backdropped by lush landscape features.
Mr. Rosenstock questioned whether only the columns will be over 6' in height..~lr. Hearing
responded affirmatively. The total fence height from the ground will never be higlfier than 5'-
71/2".
Motion
Mr. Rosenstock moved that the project known as Via Lugano - Melear PUD. loc
southwest corner of Congress Avenue and Sandalwood Drive, and their request for
to Chapter 2. Section 4.J.1 of the Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations
construction of a 5' high decorative fence and column sections Within the 40' front y~
of 23' 11" not tc exceed 7'-4 3/8" and not tO occur more often than 40' on center.
seconded the motion.
Mr. Aguila said he seconded this motion because it did not include staff comments.
The motion carried 6-1. (Mr. Myott dissented.)
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Via Lugano - Melear PUD
Donaldson Hearing
Gene and Glick Management
Southwest corner of Congress Avenue and
Drive
Request for a variance to Chapter 21, Article
1.D - Signs of the Boynton Beach Land E
Regulations to allow the height of a monumer
increased from the maximum of 5' to 8' 1".
CHAIRMAN WlSCHE ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Nancy Mayberry., a resident of Sandalwood, requested that this project
constructed.
CHAIRMAN WISCHE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Mr. Rosenstock questioned why the applicant wants to build a sign that is so high.
Mr. Hearing explained that the sign is small. The entry statement that is being con~
higher proportions based on setbacks, scale and magnitude of the project. The
limits the weight of walls to a maximum height of 6'. In addition, the signage is I
square feet. The applicant is proposing an entrance feature. The walls, columns,
trellises, and planters are part of the entry architecture In order to accommodate
the surrounding area. the applicant requested that the top of the arch on the back ol
allowed at a height of 8'-1". Since that request was made. staff explained that th
variance this board is permitted to grant is 25% (7'-6"). The applicant agrees with
the board will grant the vanance.
4
~ted at the
a variance
o allow for
~rd setback
Mr. Aguila
andalwood
V. Section
;velopment
sign to be
tastefully
lructed has
Sign Code
hired to 32
Jardhouse.
~e scale of
lhe sign be
maximum
~at height if
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 1, 1997
The signage is below the height of 5', and has been modified so that it is within a p
less than 32 square feet. It is very important for the overall entrance. This arc
intended as an enhancement.
Mr. Rosenstock expressed concern about the scale of this entrance feature. He doe
bigger sign produces better advertisement. He feels a more sedate architectural fea
be considered.
Mr Hearng expaned that the monument is 13'-11", but the sign s only 4'. Thi
necessary be(~ause of the scale of the overall prOject. Mr. Rosenstock disagreed
sign is needed because this is a large project~ It ~/as his opinion that this feature is
excessive.
Tom Cavanau,qh, PAC Land Developers, said this is a $30 million investment. Th~
lifeblood to this investment. He reminded the members of the power lines that exisl
of this project. This feature will reduce the negative aesthetics of those power lines.
because of the utility easements on Congress Avenue. this project had to be mov
from thestreet. On a residential for-sale community, the sign could be much smal
the community and houses sell themselves. However, this is a very high-end rental
Mr. cavanaugh said 90% of the people who ddve into the community will make up
to rent before they get to the guardhouse.
Mr. Rosenstock disagreed that the signage draws people into the property. He furt
outthat the applicant knew what the setbacks and the position of the utility lines wer
development was proposed. He feels the applicant planned this ~)roject with varian
It is his belief that the Code should be strictly adhered to.
Mr. Cavanaugn said 75% of the leases come from passersby. For a $30 million inw
Cavanaugh must make a first-class statement. Mr. Rosenstock feels that can be
smaller sign.
Mr. Aguila explained that when this project first came before the board, he felt it
high-end, very classy rentat community. During the Visions 20/20 conference,
discussions about the need for high-end rental opportunities in Boynton Beach. TI
provides that message to passersby. The sign can be toned down somewha
comfortable with the 7'-6". Mr. Aguila will support this request if the applicant will
staff's recommendation.
Ms. Frazier feels this will be an upscale development. She questioned the price of
Mr. Cavanaugh said the studio apartment would be at the Iow range of $700. An al
bedroom will be approximately $850. The three-bedroom unit will average ap
$1,400. None of these prices include the cost of a garage. A one-bedroom With
including a garage and privacy alarms will be approximately $1,000. This comple
least $200 to $250 higher than any other rental in Boynton Beach.
~nel that is
~itecture is
not feel a
:ure should
feature is
mat a large
gaudy and
sign is his
at the front
In addition.
d back 20'
~r because
:ommunity.
lheir minds
~er pointed
before the
es in mind.
stment, Mr.
~one with a
Nas a very
there were
is entrance
but he is
.omply with
lhe rentals.
erage one-
~roximately
everything
< will be at
5
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
DECEMBER '1, '1997
Motion
Mr. Aguila moved to approve the request for a variance to Chapter 21. Article IV, S,
Signs of the Boynton Beach Land Development R,e,,gulations to allow the height of ~
sign to be increased from the maximum of 5' to 7' 6. Ms. Frazier seconded the moti
Mr Dub~ confirmed with the applicant that he agrees with the height of 7' 6".
A roll call vote was polled. The vote was 5-2. (Messrs. Myott and Rosenstock dissE
B. SITE PLANS
New Site Plan
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Via Lugano - Melear PUD
Donaldson Hearing
Gene and Glick Management
Southwest corner of Sandalwood Drive an
Avenue
Request for site plan approval to construct
buildings containing 364 dwelling units, clubh(
recreation facilities and associated parking for
on 12.58 acres of land.
Chairman Wische asked the applicant to discuss only those comments that are oi
that require clarification.
Mr. Dub6 asked if objections remain from the first review. Ms. Heyden was unable
Mr. Dub8 pointed out that the first review is always ignored and the same comment~
the second review. He recommended that these issues be addressed between
second review.
Mr. Kastarlak explained that staff is going through the entire process of plan rev
permit process within the department. Staff is hopeful that some of the unnecessa
be eliminated through a streamlined operation for the benefit of the applicant and the
Ms. Frazier questioned when the applicant received the conditions of approval.
said the package was provided to the applicant last Tuesday. Mr. Hearing Complir
on their handling of this application He explained that a number of the comments
comments that are informational [o the owner. Other comments are a matter of
between the engineer"s plans and the applicant's plans. There are only a few cot
need to be addressed.
Mr. Dub8 pointed out that the Planning & Development Board does not need
standard comments
Mr. Myott explained that there was a list dated October 17th attached to the plans th~
how the applicant addressed the first round of comments.
ction 1.D-
monument
ted.)
Congress
apartment
Jse, office.
'67 spaces
concern or
o respond.
appear on
e first and
~w and the
/ steps wi
City.
Ir.' Hearing
ented staff
e standard
~ordination
ments thai
.o see the
explained
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 1, 1997
Mr. Hearing reported that he would address the following comments: #11. #12, #1,~, #15, #27,
#28 (#27 and #28 were resolved as a result of the variance), #31 (not applicable b ,~cause the
project has no roof-top mounted equipment), #33, #42, #43 (#42 and #43 were rE olved as a
result of the vanance), #44, #47, and #48.
· Comment #'11 - This comment relates to the median access onto Congress Ay 9nue. The
County has requested that the applicant provide a I,,e,?,?urn into the project and tt~e ability for
a car travelling southbound to be able to make a U turn to return northbound~ This is a
County standard. Since the County is the permitting agency, the applicant mu~st abide by
the requirement. TherefOre, the applicant requested t~at this ~'omment be rejected.
Ms. Heyden explained that our Police Department has a problem with the access to-]''this project
on Congress Avenue. Comments #11 and #12 are recommendations - not Code re~ uirements.
The Police Department feels this will encourage an unsafe condition.
Mr. Rosenstock explained that Congress Aven~e is a County street. Therefore they have
jurisdiction on setting the median cuts, access and egress. This comment should J ~ deleted.
With respect to Comment #12 Mr. Aguila pointed out that there is no deceleratio~ to turn off
Congress Avenue to Sandalwood Drive for southbound traffic. Mr. Rosenstock adde I that there
is no turn lane from Congress into the Mall or the Publix shopping Center. Thi,. comment
should be deleted.
· Comments #14 and #15 - These comments deal with the sidewalk on Sanda 'ood Drive.
The original master plan for the Melear PUD approved a sidewalk/bike path con ~ination on
the north side of the road along Sandalwood Drive. To accommodate this ci~mbination,
there was an additional 10' easement added on to the right-of-way No side=walk was
planned for the south side of the road. The applicant feels this condition has be .~n satisfied
by way of the original master plan. Therefore. they request deletion of Comme] ts #14 and
#15. which are interrelated
Ms. Heyden explained that the master plan was approved in the early 1950s, Thel; has been
no construction on this PUD in ten years, The master plan does not provide vestin,c for design
requirements. The issue of sidewalks on both sides, of the street was debated whell the LDRs
were updated last year. The TRC feels strongly about the need to have sidewalks ol both sides
of the roadway to provide pedestrian access. The County is now also beginning to; :ldress this
on a regional issue. In addition, this is a Code requirement that has been in plac~ for almost
one year.
Messrs. Aguila, Rosenstock and Ms. Frazier agreed with Ms. Heyden's remarks.
Mr. Hearing said the core road infrastructure was Constructed including the bik path and
sidewalk on the north side of the road. This construction was par~ of the 80' right- f-way and
the land dedications. Mr Hearing's interpretation is that it is vested On 80' rights- )f-way, the
County allows a developer to do exactly what the applicant is requesting.
Mr. Rosenstock pointed out that this proiect is in the City of Boynton Beach and m Jst comply
with our Codes. This comment will not be deleted.
7
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 1, 1997
· Comments #27 and #28 - These comments will be deleted as a result of the variance
request for the sign.
. Comment #31 - The project does not have any rooftop equipment This comn~ent will be
deleted. ~
· Comment #33 - This comment deals with the scale of which the landscape plan~ are drawn
in relationship to the site plan. The landscape plans are one inch equals twen
20'). The plans are prepared in this large scale to show ali of the necessary
Code requires that the landscape plan be drawn at the same scale as the site
the drawings are coordinated. The site plan is drawn at one inch equals fifty fee
Mr. Hearing advised that the plans are computer generated and they are totally
The site plan and landscape plan are drawn on the same computer file sir~
Therefore the applicant requests that this comment be d,e, leted. He offered to s~
Building Department a pl0t of the landscape p 0tted eU[ at 1 = 50'.
Mr. Aguila said he was very impressed with the quality and quantity of the
Because of the magnitude of this project, Mr. Aguila feels Mr. Hearing's stateme
valid. Staff will be unable to read the plan at 1" = 50'. It would be unreasonable
plan at a different scale.
Attorney Pawelczyk pointed out that there is a Code requirement that mandat~
applicant must do. The applicant has agreed to prepare a computer-generated pla
with the Code.
Mr. Kastarlak realized that the 1" = 50' would be very difficult from a practical star
recommended that a computer-drawn map be generated for the record along wi1
section of the PUD.
Attorney Pawelczyk recommended that the Code section not be varied. He agr(
computer drawing could be produced for recordkeeping and Code purposes, but
same landscape plan that was submitted for reference purposes for staff.
Mr. Cavanaugh pointed out that he would not be submitting a landscape plan as pa
plan submittal. He already submitted that ptan to the Building Department as part of
permits. He recommended that the comment be removed and he will deal dire~
individual departments.
Attorney Pawelczyk recommended that the comment be included and the applica
corn ply with the Code. He suggested that this issue be investigated for a po~
change.
Mr. Kastarlak explained that staff is trying to have the City gain an exernplary d,
Whatever the applicant can do in concert with the City will be to our benefit. He
the computer-generated drawing for the record. This will relieve staff's anxiety.
The applicant was willing to provide this one additional drawing.
8
~ feet (1" =
letail. The
lan so that
'J" = 50').
~ordinated.
ltaneously.
bmit to the
ndscaping.
t was very
o have the
what the
to comply
:!point. He
~ a sample
that the
with the
[ of his site
he building
:ly with the
r needs to
;ible Code
velopment.
an produce
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
DECEMB
Ms. Heyden asked for the scale of the paving and drainage plans. Mr. Hearing sai
sheets are cut to 1" = 40'
Mr. Aguila explained that these drawings are for the person who is building. Differenl
provide different information and different levels of detail, The scale is selected to pr
at a certain level of cladty. The reason this is in.the Code is that we want to m~
drawings are large enough so that we can do our jobs.
Ms. Heyden said this is a new Code requirement. This Code requirement came ab,
were having a problem comparing landscape plans of different scales. We
difficulty detecting conflicts with utilities and lighting plans. Ms_ Heyden offered to ~
problem with the applicant. It was agreed that the comment would remain.
· Comments ~42 and #43 - These comments are no longer applicable as a
variance that was approved, These comments were deleted.
· Comments #44 and #47 - The applicant does not believe this Code se(
applicable and requested deletion of these comments.
Mr. Hearing said this is an accessory structure within the accessory structure setb;
site plan. This is setback 20' from the main entrance that includes the planter, the
the vertical structure. This accessory structure includes a fountain. The structure i,
to the top of the arch. This's a complimentary size with the other arches and tre
project. The Code requires the maximum height of a fountain at 9'. The applicant
sees this as an accessory structure.
Mr. Cavanaugh explained that this fountain feature is a "sister structure" to the mair~
E3allen Isles at PGA Boulevard.
Mr. Myott feels all of the entry elements are very tall. Althoug~ the fountain is beauti
large. Mr, Cavanaugh pointed out that the guardhouse is 80' to 100' back from th{
There is a distance of 150' to the gates.
Mr. Reed referred to Comment #45 and questioned whether or not the applicant has
providing enough room for future recycling dumpster requirements. Mr. Cavanaug]
that he plans to detach the recycling. Mr. Hearing said the dura pster area is very we
trellises over the top.
With respect to the fountain feature. Mr. Aguila said he does not have a proble
proportions when he looks at how it relates to the entrance feature and the guardho~
that point. He will support deleting Comments #44 and #47.
In Mr. Myott's opinion, the applicant was pushing the limit on these entran(
considering the fact that variance requests were made for the fence height and si
variances do not comply with the standards that have :)een set.
· Comm_ent ~48 - Mr. Hearing does not believe this Code section applies to this pr,
section ~pl~ to all required residential parking spaces not wth n an enclos~
The majority of the parking spaces are at grade. However, there are some sp;
ER 1, 1997
the detail
disciplines
)vide detail
:e sure the
~when we
,re having
)rk out this
suit of the
on is fully
~cks of the
steps, and
16' 8 7/8"
ses in this
~grees. but
;ntrance at
II, it is very
entrance.
;onsidered
explained
done with
with the
se beyond
; features
n. These
)ject. This
garage.
ces within
9
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
DECEMBER 1, 1997
garages. The first space must be a minimum of 12' wide and 18' long exclusivelof public or
private rights-of-way. All other spaces where multiple vehicle parking is require~ must be a
minimUm of 9' wide and 18' long. All of the parking on this project is multiple parring. In Mr.
Hearing's opinion, this Code section refers to single-family or duplex housing. He requested
deletion of this comment since he cannot figure out how it Would apply for ~ultl-family
projects.
Ms. Heyden requested an opportunity to review this comment more closely. In az
Heyden reminded the members that the board could not grant a variance with res
comment or Comments #44 and #47 since no variance was applied for. The app
have to come back at a future date. This section of the Code was recently rewdtte
clear. It is obvious that it is still not clear.
Mr. Hearing agreed to work with Ms. Heyden on Comment #48 but requested th~
delete Comments #44 and #47 this evening.
Ms. Heyden said she would prefer to sit down with the applicant to discuss items th;
compliance' with the Code. These are new sections of the Code and there ma
maneuverability with respect to interpretation.
Mr. Aguila felt it would be fair to give Ms. Heyden and the applicant an opportunit
these items.
In Mr. Cavanaugh's opinion Ms Heyden and Mr. Lewicki had ample opportunil
these issues. To go back through the process again and have staff decide a
required will delay him more than a month. This board has the ability to determine
not an item meets Code or whether or not a Code section applies.
Mr. Kastarlak admitted that there are issues that arise at these meetings that shoul~
brought out earlier. This is a lack of communication between the applicant and th~
Kastartak is a proponent of a pre-application conference between the applicants an¢
conference is very desirable since many of these problems will be brought up in adw
decisions can be made early on. Mr. Kastarlak apologized for any oversight on th(
staff, but offered to sit down and discuss these issues with the applicant.
Mr. Hearing concurred that a meeting would be of value. He further added that sta
terrific.
Motion
Mr. Aguila moved that we approve the request for site plan approval to construct 1,"
buildings containing 364 dwelling units, clubhouse, office, recreation facilities andI
parking for 767 spaces on 12.58 acres of land subject to staff comments less th~
Comments #11, 12.27, 28, 31,42.43.44, 47. and 48. Ms Frazier seconded the mol
Mr. Rosenstock said he would not support the motion since it should be subject to
between Ms. Heyden and the applicant
10
Idition. Ms
)ect to this
cant would
to make it
[he board
are not in
be some
discuss
to discuss
fariance is
whether or
lave been
staff, Mr.
staff. This
ice so that
~art of his
has been
apartment
~ssociated
following:
on
a discussion
MEETING MINUTES
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
DECEMB
A roll call vote was polled and the motion failed 4-3. (Chairman Wische,
Rosenstock, Myott. and Friedland cast the dissenting votes.)
Motion
Mr. Rosenstock moved that we approve the request for site plan approval to
apartment buildings containing 364 dwelling units, clubhouse, office, recreation fa
associated parking for 767 spaces on 12.58 acres of land subject to staff commer
following: Comments #11, 12, 27, 28, 31,42, 43, 44, and 47. Mr. Aguila seconded
Mr. Dub~ pointed out that if the Planning and Zoning Department decides that Corr
not applicable itwould go away.
The motion carried unanimously.
C. OTHER
None
8. COMMENTS BY MEMBERS
Mr. Dubb reminded the members that the Walgreen's at Alhambra is on the City
agenda for tomorrow evening. Although it appears that item will be tabled again,
explained that if it goes forward, he would like someone to speak at that meeting si
he nor Mr. Reed will be able to attend That applicant made a statement that the
Development Board voted down their site plan without considering the facts. That i
to be addressed. In addition. Walgreens has a home page on the Intemet th;
separate line of pharmacies called Walgreens Po( Press. This is exactly what woutd
n question, but they have never admitted they have used this design. This is anoth
should be addressed.
Ms. Heyden offered to address these items.
9. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Planning & Development
meeting properly adjourned at 8:40 p.m
J_~net M Prainito
Deputy City Clerk
(Two Tapes)
ER t, 1997
a~ d Messrs.
,nstruct 13
silities and
ts less the
e motion.
~ent #48 is
ommission
Mr. Dub~
~ce neither
=lanning &
sue needs
shows a
on the lot
item that
;oard. the
11