Loading...
Minutes 06-25-96MI NUTES OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 1996, AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT J. Stanley Dubb, Chairman Jim Golden, Vice Chairman Josh Aguila Barry Hill Maurice Rosenstock Lee Wische Pat Frazier, Alternate James Reed, Alternate ABSENT Robert Eisner Tambri Heyden, Planning & Zoning Director 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Dubb called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m., and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 2. INTRODUCTION OF MAYOR~ COMMISSIONERS, AND BOARD MEMBERS He introduced the board members. In Dr. Elsner's absence, Mr. Reed sat as a voting member. 3. AGENDA APPROVAL Mr. Rosenstock moved to approve [he agenda as presented. Vice Chairman Golden seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Vice Chairman Golden requested a clarification of the second paragraph of Page 19 of the minutes of the June 11, 1996 meeting. He requested that the paragraph be changed to read, "Vice Chairman Golden explained that he does not have a problem with the sign program as amended by Mr. Kilda~ however he will vote no because he has a problem with the original rezoning." Mr. Aguila advised that he made several notations on his copy of the June 11 minutes. On the Cedar Ridge Project, Comment #6 was skipped, and Mr. Aguila cannot recall the reason for skipping that comment. He requested [hat he be permitted to offer his comments on the approval of the minutes at the next meeting. MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 Motion Vice Chairman Golden moved to postpone approva~ of the minutes from the last meeting of the Planning and Development E~oard to allow Mr. Aguila to incorporate his comments. Mr. Aguila seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 5. COMMUNICATIONS & ANNOUNCEMENTS: A. Report from the Planninq & Zoninq Department: 1. Final Disposition of Last Meeting's Agenda Items Ms. Heyden reminded the members of their request for staff to follow up on the condition of the sod at the parking lot across the street from the Outpatient Center. Staff discovered that the City's new xeriscape/landscaping policy was used at this location. As part of the oolicy, there is a 90-day follow-up. Seeding for lawn grass was a~ owed as well as other xeriscape plant ~natedals. The follow-up inspection was due today; however, Ms. Heyden did not have an opportunity to follow-up to make sure it passed inspection. Rezoning for the Quantum Park PID/PCD Center - This item was tabled. Public StOrage Planning Area 1.q. - Tabled for 30 days. This item will appear at the next meeting. Use Approval for Quantum Park - This item is on hold until the July 2 City Commission meeting. Vice Chairman Golden remarked that some of the issues in tonight's application are related to the use approval. He questiOned why this item was put on the agenda in the order that was used. Ms. Heyden advised that the original intent was that all three applications would appear together, However, because of traffic issues and discussions which took place among staff, the applicant and Treasure Coast, tonight's item was postponed. The City is under State regulations relative to timing and processing of the DRI amendment. Site Plan Approval for Cedar Ridge Townhomes - The Planning and Development Board had a number of recommendations which were endorsed by the City Commission. In addition, the City Commission approved 40' streets rather than the 50' streets based on historical vesting of a previously-approved master plan dating back to 1983. 2 MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 Knuth Road PCD Major Site Plan Modification for Signage - This board's recommendation regarding curved tops for al s~gns and substituting Sign B and D to lower the s~ze of the sign was approved by the City Commission. Discussion Item Relating to Telecommunications Ordinance - This Ordinance was scheduled for second reading at the last City Commission meeting. It is being readvertised and will be back before the City Commission on July 2. With regard to this item, the Planning and Development Board discussed the possibility of a half-mile radius er a one-mile radius between poles. Ms. Heyden mapped this, and found that a one-mile radius was very, very large. Her recommendation is for as half-mile radius. Mr. Aguila questioned whether when it was mapped out, there would still be room for a "toothpick factory". Ms. Heyden responded that there are a lot of sites, but this use is subject to conditional use approval. The sites are scattered and some are as close a one- quarter mile apart. 6. OLD BUSINESS: None 7. NEW BUSINESS: A. SUBDIVISION Master Plan Modification 1. Project: Location: Agent: Owner: Description: Quantum Park PID West side of the intersection of Interstate 95 and Gateway Boulevard James Willard, Shutts & Bowen Quantum Associates Request to amend the previously-approved PID master plan in connection with an amendment to the DRI to add 13.17 acres (the PCD Center subdivision) to the PID boundaries and change the use designation from office to commercial/Industrial use, add the option of commercial use to the existing use designated for [ets 65A, 65B, 66, 67A, 67B, 67C, 68A, 68B, 69, 70, 72, 3 MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 73A, 73B, 74-79, 83-85, and 91, and change the use designation of lots 58, 59, 60, and 61 from Commercial to Industrial/Research and Development/Office. James Willard, Attorney for Quantum Associates, introduced Steve Godfrey of Kimley- Horn. Mr. Godfrey is Quantum Associates' transportation expert and the analyst who prepared the traffic report. Unlike the previous matters previously addressed by this board which dealt with the use approval for the CarMax site and the rezoning of the three lots Coming into Quantum Park, there are three primary objectives to the DRI amendment request. The first objective is to bring the three lots into the DRI that were the subject to the rezoning and use approval. These are Lots 80, 81, and 82. The second objective is relative to Quantum Associates' desire to relocate and expand the land area on which commercial development would be a permitted use. Mr, Willard dispIayed three charts. One of the charts reflected the existing master site development plan for Quantum Park as currently approved. The last approval date was October 28, 1994 which was when the school site was approved. Highlighted in red on that chart was the location of the existing lots on which commercial use is a permitted use. On the same chart, the cross-hatching indicates the lots which have office and hotel as permitted uses. The second chart reflected the applicant's request. This request involves a relocation of the commercial area of Quantum Park from the area on Quantum Lakes Drive into an area which is the 1-95 frontage and around the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Park Ridge Road. This chart showed three of the lots highlighted in red which were already zoned commercial from the existing approval, four lots highlighted in yellow indicating the CarMax project, and the additional lots involved in the request. In response to Mr. Aguila's question, Mr. Willard explained that the first chart indicates 29.7 acres of commercial. The secOnd chart proposes 70 to 80 acres of commercial. The third chart identified the land use type and amount of density of approved land uses per the 1984 approved DRI/ADA. The square footages indicated are as follows: Industrial Commercial Office Hotel 4,443,120 square feet 426,888 square feet 1,685,772 square feet 400 rooms 4 MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 It came to the applicant's attention during discussions with the Regional Planning Council that they wanted these square footages utilized in the transportation analysis when projecting buildeut of the entire park, how many trips, and what kind of land use category it comes from~ The applicant went back to the original DRI as opposed to taking acres of land and multiplying it bythe highest FAR (Floor Area Ratio). The square footages shown are reflected in the ~ransportation analysis, and the applicant is in agreement with recognizing them as the maximum permitted categories of those land use types in the Development Order. The th rd objective o[ the amendment is to comply with a requirement in the 1994 Develepment Order that requests the applicant to come back and do a traffic analysis of the intersection at Gateway Boulevard and Park Ridge Road. Mr. Willard read the folloWing from the City Ordinance which was adopted two years ago when the high school use was approved and a DRI amendment was prepared: "As part of the next DRI amendment, the developer agrees to perform a transportation analysis of the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and High Ridge Road. That analysis shall be based upon the most-recently proposed land uses within the DRI and shall be acceptable to the City, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, and the DCA. If the transportation analysis projects a deficient level of service at the intersection, the developer shall perform such mitigation as necessary to bring the intersection up to an acceptable level of service~ Such mitigation may include intersection improvements or preferably, additional roadway access to Gateway Boulevard for the lots in the southeast portion of the project." The reason this was included in the DRI amendment is that when the high school was approved, it required an elimination of a section of Park Ridge Road. What was a Iccp will become a cul-de-sac when that section of the road is eIiminated. There was a concern over the traffic implications of that elimination of roadway; In order to accommodate the School Board, the traffic analysis was postponed until the next DRI amendment. The primary focus of the report was to analyze the impacts of cloSing the road, determine if there is enough access to Ga[eway BOulevard, and what might have to be done to improve the performance of the intersection. Mr. Willard explained that the City Commission, as the local government, issues the Development Orders and determines what is approved in a DRI. The Regional Planning Council acts as a clearinghouse to coordinate input and comments from any agency having an interest in commenting on the DRI. The Department of Community Affairs is the only agency that can appeal a decision of the City. The applicant can also appeal the City's MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 decision. The application for an amendment to the DRI was sent to the Regional Planning Councii which will coordinate co mments from Palm Beach County, FDOT and DCA. The applicant has been dealing with the Regional Planning Council, Palm Beach County, FDOT and the City. The applicant has been in touch with DCA. Their primary concern relates to traffic. They are awaiting comments from FDOT. The purpose of getting al of the comments is to provide input so that the City can evaluate and make a determination. It s not necessary to have a consensus by all of the commenting agencies. Mr. Willard does not believe there will be any objection to the applicant's first objective to add Lots 80, 81, and 82 to the DRI. Mr. Willard explained that what Quantum is trying to achieve ~s greater flexibility in marketing the property. There was a total of 426,888 square feet originally approved for the DRI. The applicant proposed to adhere to that ceiling. The Regional Planning Council believes that the origina!ly-approved hotel square footage (400 rooms) is incorporated into the commercial number. The conversion ratio is 268 square feet per room. If 400 rooms were built, that would amount to slightly more than 100,000 square feet which would be applied against the cap. The applicant agrees with that. Quantum is hopeful that there will be one, or possibly two hotels built somewhere near the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and 1-95. Quantum is attempting to relocate the commercial to the area where they feel commercial ]s inclined to be concentrated. They do not believe it is in the area along Quantum Lakes Drive. It is unknown why the commercial was located in that area. The most likely place for commercial to take place would be in the area proposed in order to take advantage of 1-95 visibility and the activity around the intersection. With this change, there will be over 200 acres left in Quantum Park for industrial and research and development. With the anticipated development of CarMax, Quantum would like the flexibility of accommodating commercial users should they wish to locate in Quantum. No users have yet been identified. Steve Godfrev, reqistered Professional Engineer, Kimle¥-Horn & Associates, explained that the Development Order specifies what the traffic study was to undertake. Because of the cutting of Park Ridge Road, there was only one access available for the eastern portion of the southern part of the development. The goal was to identify to what extent the existing intersection would accommodate the proposed development. If that was not adequate, it would be necessary to identify the improvements needed and the timing for those improvements. During the study, it was found that the intersection, as it currently exists, will need imProvements. However, it is an adequate intersection for access for the site. Two studies were conducted. Each of the studies targeted the same purpose of evaluating the MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 intersection. Both studies used different methodologies, but both came to the same conclusion. The original study did not conform to the way some of the reviewing agencies prefer to see the study done. The applicant took advice from the Regional Planning Council in terms of the method they like, and from the Department of Transportation n terms of trip generation rates. As a result of application of the process, the applicant identified improvements that are needed for the intersection. It is important to note that the land use that has been evaluated in the analysis is the one listed on the charts. The traffic study includes the effects and impacts of the full amount of development. Mr. Godfrey advised that the transportation study indicated that in order to accommodate the proposed land use, the flexibility proposed in the plan, and the limitation of one access point on Gateway Boulevard, the following is necessary: At 1,200 peak hour trips, a southbound dual left must be provided. This would be coming from the north, heading south going toward 1-95. This is a simple project which includes restriping existing pavement to make two left- turn lanes. At 1,300 peak hour trips, it will be necessary to provide a second right turn lane in the northbound direction. The right-of-way is available. The developer owns the property and can make those improvements. The next improvement would be the addition of a southbound right turn lane, at 1,935 peak hour trips, coming from the north heading south. This will take the project to 2,300 peak hour trips. These are trips associated with Park Ridge Road. The applicant has created a scenario of levels of development which is dependent on access in this location, and determined at what total number of trips the improvements are required to make the intersection work. The analysis is conservative because it includes a significant amount of thru-traffic growth on Gateway. The applicant has been undertaking coordination with the review agencies as it relates to the studies. The applicant learned of concerns relative to the first study, and responded to those concerns in the second study; The first study was provided in April, and the new study was provided on June 10~ 1996. On June 19, the County provided a letter expressing continued concern. The County was contacted the following day and the applicant learned about their concerns. The County looks atthe changes from a single perspective as it relates to their authority. Under the Traffic Performance Standards, the issue is whether or not this proposed project MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 will generate more trips than what was approved. The plan is that it will not generate more trips. The existing entitlements will not change. Mr. Aguila questioned whether or not an argument exists based on the fact that by concentrating so much potential commercial use to that one intersection, more traffic may not be created in the entire Park, but the traffic demand is intensified at that one intersection. The suggested improvements may no1 be sufficient to deal with that intersection so close to 1-95. Mr. Godfrey said that by locating the commemial in this location, the Regional Planning Council transportation consultant suggested that the orientation of the commercial may be more toward 1-95 than if it were in the original location. As a result, when the study was updated, the applicant assumed that a significant increase in activity would occur between the area and 1-95. There will not be more trips through the intersection than there would have been. However, there will be a change m traffic pattern That change n traffic patterr~ (or intensification) has been taken into consideration in evaluating the intersection. In addition, there is an extra margin included because the applicant included the impact of the.hotel square footage in the analysis. That impact no longer exists because it is already included in the commercial square footage. Vice Chairman Golden noted that it appears the relocation of the commercial along the 1-95 corridor would attract more external trips. Mr. Godfrey agreed that this is a possibility. However, he feels it depends on who the ultimate users are in the location. In the case of the analysis, no internal capture was taken. All of the commercial activity that is being generated is traveling through the intersection and leaving the developmenl Mr. Godfrey advised that in updating the analysis, consideration was given to DOT's comments. Mr. Willard met with DOT and they have not had an opportunity to review the June 10 report. They are working on it now. There were discussions relative to what was addressed, their concerns, and the approach that was taken. They were in agreement with the concept of the approach that was taken. Treasure Coast recommended the revised methodology to the applicant. The applicant FAXED the revised report to their consultant for review before finalizing itto make sure that they were addressing Treasure Coast's concerns. Their consultant is still in the review process. All of the agencies that are reviewing this proposal will agree that the improvements recommended, and the staging recommended, will provide the desired and appropriate level of service at the intersection to provide an adequate access. Mr. Willard distributed an alternative version of a motion for approval to make it easy for the members: to revieTM the differences between what the appIicant is seeking versus what staff recommends. (A copy of that material is attached to the original set of minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office.) MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PL/~NNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 Mr. Willard explained that in order to implement the requested amendment, another Ordinance must be passed. The application process requires submittal of a proposed Ordinance. Mr. Willard reviewed the packet containing the draft Ordinance which was part of the June 11 submittal. He asked the members to look at Page 3, Section 2 which identifies the terms of the requested proposal. Paragraph I recites that Lots 80, 81, and 82 are hereby added and incorporated into the DRI (This was the first objective he spoke of earlier.) Paraoraph 2 incorporates, by reference, master plan amendment #6. This refers to Chart #2 which Mr. Willard had on display. This chart contains the descriptions of the land use classifications. Paragraph 3 includes the trigger for making sure the intersection improvements are performed. It references the Kimley-Horn study and lists the intersection improvements as '[hat portion of the project served by Park Ridge Road exceeds certain trip generation levels. Paragraph 3 continues to list the different levels and identifies the necessary improvements to be made. Since the June 11 proposed Development Order was drafted, and as a result of the staff report, discussions with other agencies including the Regional Planning Council, and the letter received todayfrom them, Mr. Willard commented on additional terms he agreed to incorporate into the proposed Development Order: Lots #53 and 54 were bought by the School Board and mistakenly not labeled Government and Institutional. That has been changed. This is a mechanism for letting the City know how many trips are going on and when the improvements are needed. The applicant has proposed a mechanism whereby, "Concurrently with the submittal of a building permit application for any lot, the applicant must submit, in writing to the City, an indication of the number of trips being generated by any use on any of the lots (commercial or otherwise). For any lot on which commercial is an approved use and it is served by Park Ridge Road access, the applicant must provide information on how many trips will be generated and the impact of the cumulative number of trips every time a building permit application is submitted. At the request of the Regional Planning Council, the applicanl shaded in the area of Park Ridge Road that will be closed MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 when the high school is built. The shading carried over slightly too far. The applicant wil~ cut back approximately 1/8" so that the cul-de-sac between Lots #45A and #46A stays open to public traffic. With respect to any commercial development proposed on Gateway Boulevard, the applicant will not increase the number of freestanding signs above one per lot, or the number of access points to Gateway Boulevard than is currently anticipated (one access point per lot with cross access encouraged). The applicant will try to beef up landscaping on any commercial use on Gateway. As a result of the Regional Planning Council letter to Ms. Heyden, there were three recommendations. One recommendation dealt with parcels 53 and 54. That has been addressed. The second recommendation is that the hotel use should not be considered a separate use, but part of the commercial. The applicant will add a term in this regard. The third recommendation requires that the maximum square footage for the development (industrial, commercial and office) be identified on the face of the master plan. The applicant has done that for commercial, but will add office and industrial as well. The applicant requests approval of the proposed Development Order as modified. Mr. Aguila stated that he does not object to the relocation of the commemial areas from the originally-intended areas. However, he pointed out that at the present time, he enjoys the view along 1-95 because the Quantum Park side of the highway looks so nice. He envisions that this proposal could cause a degradation of that area so that it will look disastrous. Although the applicant is willing to limit the signage to one sign per site, Mr. Aguila would prefer that the signs wou: Id be one freestanding sign per site on the main road access way (High Ridge Road or Park Ridge Road). He does not want to drive along 1-95 and have to view groups of open bays, lots of activity, and lots of roll-up doors with industrial uses. He is concerned that by concentrating all of that potential commercial activity along this corridor, that is what we will wind up with. In addition, Mr. Aguila is not convinced on the traffic issue at the intersection of High Ridge and Gateway. He feels it will be a nightmare. There are only 600 or 700' from the exit ol 1-95 to that intersection. Everyone going into that area will go through that intersection and leave from that intersection. When the road is closed off because the school is built, Mr. Aguila does not believe that intersection will be adequate for access. He questioned whether any consideration was gwen to opening up along the side of the Publix tract (Lot 55), going across the lake and out to Quantum Lakes Drive. Mr. Wiliard said that issue arose two years ago when the high school proposal came l0 MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 through. The Fire Department raised the issue relative to emergency access. Mr. Willard explained that Mr. Aguila's suggestion is not possible because the applicant does not own or control that property. The likelihood of Publix or the School Board donating land to build a road is not feasible. Mr. Aguila questioned whether it would be physically possible to put in a road. Mr. Willard did not have an answer to that question; however, he said this suggestion, has been looked at because thequestion has been asked. At the map, he indicated the Publix lot, and the lake. It would be necessary to take off from Park Ridge Boulevard, through the Publix property around the lake, and either stay within the Publix property or go through part of the School Board lots, go around another lake and tie into Quantum Lakes Drive. Mr. Willard does not believe this is a feasible alternative. In additior, nothing in the traffic analysis indicates a requ,irement for such a decision. Projected buildout of all of the square footages says the traffic can be accommodated with the improvements identified,by the applicant. Twenty-three hundred (2,300) peak hour tdps become a self-enforcing constrai[~t on the developer. Once the,intersection is maxed out, the developer cannot sell the remaining land. Mr. Aguiia agreed that Mr. Wiilard's point is defendable. He still has concerns about how the concentration of commercial use wilI aesthetically affect the 1-95 corridor. In addition, staff has concerns about further subdivision of the lots. Mr. Willard feels the 1-95 frontage will attract wholesale type users similar to CarMax. These will be destination type uses. The developer does not anticipate further subdivision of the lots because of the nature of the users. On Gateway Boulevard, it is possible that a retail user may not want 21/2 or 3 acres. If any of the lots are subdivided, it will be one of the lots on Gateway. This is another reason why sign control and limited access are important. Mr. Aguila pointed out that although the developer agrees to limited access and limited signage, Item #4b of the motion says there will be one access point per lot. If the tot is subdivided into two lots, there could be two accesses and the applicant would be in compliance. Mr. Willard said that was not his intention. If one of the lots is subdivided, there will be one joint access point required (internal driveway to come out of the same point with an ingress/egress easement common to both'). Mr. Willard said Item #4b can be changed to reflect his intention. Mr. Willard added that if there are two users on a lot, there will be one s~gn with two panels and one driveway. The limitation is to have one access point and one sign per land area comprised of the existing lot dimensions as they are today. With regard to the comment about the aesthetics of the 1-95, if this land is not commercial, an industrial or office user could go in and build it out. There is no specific sign control presently. He recommended that for commercial users on lots fronting 1-95, other than MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 CarMax, sign control should be made a conditior of site plan approval that comes back before the board with a limited conditional use. The landscaping can be handled the same way. Landscaping and signage create the view to the traveling public. Ms. Heyden confirmed thal site plans come to the Planning and Development Board. However, she feels the standards need to be set now when there is control. Mr. AguiIa explained that it is difficult to set standards for appropriate landscaping or signage without seeing what will be done on the site. Ms. Heyden advised that landscaping will be taken care of when the City gets the greenbelt plan. Mr. Willard explained that those plans will allow design flexibility so that when a user comes in. the greenbelt can be customized to the particular use. Mr. Aguila pointed out that there still must be an element within the greenbelt to tie all of Quantum Park together. Mr. Willard agreed with that remark. Mr. Aguila is comfortable with Mr. Wiliard's concession on the signage and landscaping. Mr. Wiilard explained that if there ~s a notation of specific City interest and approval on landscaping and signage for any commercial use fronting 1-95 in the Ordinance adopting an amendment to the DRI, it means more than if it is buried in the Landscape Code. Mr. Aguila suggested the notation be for any commercial use--not just those fronting 1-95. Ms. Heyden said there ~s an approved sign program for this project. There are freestanding signs which are monument signs for each individual user along the frontage. This addresses the frontage of 1-95 until the City receives a sign program amendment. Mr. Willard said the applicant does not envision or recommend pylon signs along i-95. Monument signs and facade signage is okay. CarMax is looking for identification, and will wind up proposing some type of major Quantum identification sign with two or three panels. It will say "Quantum Park" and CarMax will get the top panel. There is a prohibition on pole signs for industrial users. Vice Chairman Golden feels the comments relative to the design issues are appropriate. In addition, there are two other major concerns. The first concern is the number of outstanding impact issues which need to be fully resolved. Those issues are raised in staff's report and the comments from the external agencies. Vice Chairman Golden feels this forum may not be appropriate to review all of these impacts. He feels this should be going to a substantial deviation review for a more full-blown analysis of these impacts. The City Commission will have to decide on this request; He pointed out that this proposal has exposed some of the problems with the high school being incorporated in the Park. Those problems focus on traffic, the closure of Park Ridge Boulevard, and increased traffic at the intersection of High Ridge Road and Quantum Boulevard. He is in agreement with staff that there could be negative consequences by relocating the commercial usage to the 1-95 t2 MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 frontage. This may attract users that are strip-type commercial rather than ancillary to the Park. Vice Chairman Golden feels this is a major change to the master plan. The comments about design guidelines may be appropriate, and we should look at them more closely. Mr. Rosenstock q uestioned whether or not staff has made any recommendations relative to the design guidelines. He was directed to Comment#12 of the staff report. Mr. Willard explained that subparagraphs c, e, and f are incorporated in the motion he prepared. However, he requested that the applicant not be held to subparagraphs a, b, and d. Vice Chairman Golden referred to Comment #10 on Page 7 of staff's report. This comment is made by the City Forester. Some of the lots that are proposed for additional commercial usage back up to the Sand Pine Preserve. If there is an impact on the Preserve, this would be grounds for substantial deviation review. Mr. WiHard stated that the applicant is aware that such an imoact would be a substantiai deviation. However, regardless of the nature of the land use, there would not be a detrimental impact on the Sand Pine Preserve. Furthermore, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council has not raised this as a concern to date. Mr. Aguila felt this was a "blanket-type comment" and agreed that there ~s no indication that the Sand Pine Preserve would be impacted. Vice Chairman Golden further referred to the first two paragraphs on Page 6 of the staff report. The first paragraph says "...further development of regional impact review is required before the proposed amendment can be determined as not being a substantial deviation...", and then the second paragraph says, "...it is recommended that the determination be made that the changes are substantial in nature unless the conditions listed below are incorporated into the Ordinance amending the Development Order...". He asked Ms. Heyden for clarification of these statements. Ms. Heyden explained that we are dealing with the City's master plan amendment process and the Regional Planning Council's DRI amendment. The first paragraph relates to the DRI, and the second paragraph relates to the master plan. She explained that she did not have the benefit of staff comments from the agencies. From the comments Ms. Heyden received from Treasure Coast today, a determination can be made that further DRI review is necessary. She stands by her comments related to traffic. Once that issue is resolved, no further DRI review is necessary. On the local issue, without the conditions 1-12, Ms: Heyden believes this is a major change to the original master plan. Vice Chairman Golden believes that Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering feels there tS MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 are still impact ~ssues that must be resolved. Ms. Heyden stated that DCA will object unless the traffic issue is resolved. Mr. Aguila feels the traffic ~ssue is something which can be resolved. He questioned whether gross square footage was used. Mr. Willard responded affirmatively. Ms. Heyden questioned why Mr. Willard did not include Comment #1 in his amendment if he used gross square footage. Mr. Willard explained that this is already contained in the Statute. Knowing that the DR amendment process must take place by Ordinance, he would like to try to limit the conditions contained in the Ordinance amending the DRI to major regional issues that affect the project. Less significant issues can be left to a local form. Mr. Aguila inquired about the regulations that affect this PID. Ms. Heyden said the master plan regulates the PID. The DRI requirements have less information on them than we require. Mr. Willard reviewed the comments in the staff report: Comment #1 - Mr. Willard explained that the way trip generation is calculated, there is gross square footage and gross leasable area (GLA). For commercial, the standard used is gross leasable area. Ms. Heyden advised that Comment #1 came from the Treasure Coast Traffic Engineer. n addition, Palm Beach County uses gross square footage in their analyses. She does not want to encounter a problem because the applicant is using gross leasable area when the City is looking for gross sc~ uare footage. Mr. Willard said that when a land p~an is g~ven to a traffic engineer to determine the traffic generation, the gross square footage is converted to gross leasable area. That is the area that generates the trips. Comment #1 is correct for industrial, office, and any non- commercial, but the term is g ross leasable area for commercial. Mr. Godfrey advised that the Planning Council uses the same book he used to make his determination. However, Ms. Heyden explained that the City relies on Palm Beach County to do its traffic study. She will consult with the County. Mr. Willard pointed out that this is not a relevant issue at this point because it goes to the traffic report. This is not an issue that needs to be in the Ordinance on the DRI amendment. Mr. Godfrey reported that he has had discussions with County staff, and their position is simple. The only roll the County plays is to get involved if the project generates more trips 14 MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 than it is approved to generate. A determination must be made regarding whether this project will keep the number of trips at the approved level. He explained that there is no proposed change and there will be no traffic generation for the project; therefore, the County is wot involved. The project will not have any new trips, and the City will get a letter from the County stating they have no involvement. Mr. Rosenstock pointed out that this project could be approved pending that confirmation from the County. Comment #2 - Mr. Willard asked that the applicant not be restricted to 29.7 acres. Ms. Heyden feels this is the most important issue other than traffic. CarMax will have a small building with a lot of acreage. If there are many of those kinds of uses, they could use up tr~e acreage limitation, but not reach the square footage limitation. The impact is that there could be more ce mmercial than was originally envisioned in the DRI because there would be more lots with commercial on them. If this is limited to the square footage and not the 29.7 acres, the amount of commercial could be doubled. Mr. Willard stated that is exactly what the applicant would like to have. He would like the flexibility to have more commercial acres so that they do not exceed the square footages originally projected. Mr. Rosenstock expressed concern that the square footage will be used up with a very low assessec valuation encompassing the square footage as opposed to buildings on it with higher valuation per occupied square foot. Mr. Willard said Quantum Associates wants to market land and sell it. Even though CarMax will take up 45,000 square foot and up 14 acres of land, it is not assessed on the square footage of only the building. Notwithstanding the tax assessed value of the property, the applicant recognizes that they may have 30, 40, or 50 acres of commercial land and not exceed the cap. That is the reason why they have a larger area outlined in red on the chart where they can locate the square footage. They are of the opinion that circumstances demand the change. Mr. Wische pointed out that many of the members of the board attended the Visions 20/20 Conference. He noted that the word "flexibility" had been used many times this evening. He referred to the report issued following the Visions 20/20 Conference where there are references to the fact that the City's development approval process ~s not flexible enough to attract future development in the City. He quoted other statements from the report which referred to flexibility. He said that from what he is hearing this evening, we are not trying to help. Instead, we are hindering development. He recommended that the board approve this project subject to the submittal of favorable reports being received from the agencies. The applicant has addressed everything. The applicant is trying to establish a tract and t5 MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 get it moving. They have hired influential marketing people. CarMax could be the catalyst for Quantum Park. Mr. Lee feels they can work out all issues once alt of the reports are received. He suggests passing this on to the Commission based on some of Mr. Aguila's comments regarding the 1-95 frontage. Ms. Heyden expressed concern about the 29.7 acres because of the ~mpact on other commercial areas in the City. Visions20/20 aisc talked about the revitalization of Federal Highway. By creating commercial in Quantum Park, we will be taking it away from other areas in the City. There are 500,000 square feet of approved, unconstructed commercial area on Congress Avenue. The City has given time extensions time and time again to those projects. Mr. Wische pointed out that Quantum Park has been zoned for industrial for six years and they were unabl6 to attract anyone. Chairman Dubb re~ uested that the applicant return to the review of staff's comments. He realized that the applicant wants Comment #2 removed. Comment #3 - Mr. Willard has complied with this comment. Comment #4 - Mr. Willard explained that the first part of the comment refers to Lots #40 and #41A. These lots have a dual government and institution, and research and development classifications. These lots are subject to a School Board option. Mr. Rosenstock questioned whether Mr. Willard would be amenable to reducing the 426,888 square feet by the amount of unoccupied space (asphalt) on the CarMax property. Mr. Willard responded negatively. Mr. Resenstock pointed out that if Mr. WillarcJ took that square footage of asphalt off the 426,888 square feet, Ms. Heyden's concern would be addressed. Ms. Heyden explained that the reason the square footage was added to the ADA is that the traffic engineers need square footage to study traffic. The City set up a master plan. That acreage for commercial is then converted to square footage to determine the limitation on the square footage. It would go against the original intent of the project to now go back ant take the one which is greater. Comment #5 - Mr. Willard stated that he wi] get final comments before the City Commission meeting next week. Unless DCA appeals because of the traffic issue, the applicant will have the comments and they can be evaluated. It is not relevant if they agree with the traffic analysis. The focus of the traffic study was to identify improvements to the ntersection. That has been done. Comment #6 - was addressed, MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 Comment #7 - The applicant has submitted a utility analysis. Mr. Godfrey added that Kimley-Horn responded today with an additional analysis and found that the lift station has more than adequate capacity. Comment #8 - was addressed with respect to the desire for the road connection. However, it cannot be accomplished. Comment #9 - has been addressed and is on the proposal. Comment #10 - deals with the Sand Pine Preserve, and the applicant does not believe there will be any impact on that preserve. .Comment #11 - is the converse of Comment #12. Ms. Heyden recommended that commercial usage be allowed only on the lots that CarMax is interested in. That amount will then be subtracted from the total 29.7 acres. You take out the option of all other lots and restore Lot #61 as commercial. Mr. Willard is not agreeable with that recommendation. Comment #12c, e, and f are incorporated into the proposal subject to clarification. Comment 12a - The applicant would prefer not to corr oly with "a". They do not Know why the lots were platted. Every lot may wind up being subdivided at some point in time. The applicant does not want to be constrained. Comment 12b - Mr. Willard stated that the likelihood of the type of commercial that wil be attracted to Quantum Park is not the strip-type commercial one would find on Federal Highway or Congress Avenue. The applicant feels there will be single users, but there are concepts with two users in one building. They do not want to be restricted to single-use buildings. This issue can be addressed at site plan. Comment 12d - This is the same as Comment 12b. Ms. Heyden is concerned that there will be carved up lots. However, Mr. Aguila feels that what makes this different is that Quantum Park is like a home. You go there because there ~s a level of quality you expect to be provided to the public. That mentality tends not to exist on Congress Avenue. He thinks the character of the potential tenant is a different caliber than what we see o n Federal Highway or Congress Avenue. Motion Mr. Aguila moved to approve Quantum Associates' request to amend the previously- approved PID master plan in connection with an amendment to the DRI to add 13.17 acres MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 (the PCD Center subdivision) to the PID boundaries and change the use designation from office to commercial/Industrial use. add the option of commercial use to the existing use designated for lots 65A, 65B, 66, 67A, 67B, 67C, 68A, 68B, 69, 70, 72, 73A 73B, 74-79, 83-85, and 91, and change the use designation of lots 58, 59, 60, and 61 from Commercial to Industrial Research and Development/Office subject to the following: Compliance with recommendations in staff report, Comments 1-12 as amended; Comment #2 of the developer's submitted motion reccmmendations which reads "Concurrently with the submittal of a building permit application for any lot for which commercial development is a permitted use pursuant to the Master Site Development Plan (regardless of whether the proposed use is commercial or another permitted land use), the applicant shall indicate n writing to the City the number of p.m. peak hour vehicle trips estimated to be ge nerated by the proposed building improvement and also the aggregate peak hour trip generation for all lots served by Park Ridge Boulevard; Comment #4 as modified, i.e., if lots are subdivided, s~gns and access points will be shared; 4. That the hotel area is part of the 426,888 gross square feet; 5. 'That all agreed capacities be identified on the master plan; 6. Delete Items #8, 10, and 11 of staff's recommendations; and 7. That ail traffic concerns be successfully resolved with the proper agencies. Mr. Wische seconded the motion. Mr. Aguila clarified that his Comment #4 implies that by approving the applicant's request, the applicant is not limited to the 29.7 acres. Amendment to the Motion Mr. Aguila moved to amend the motion to include that in staff's recommendation (item #2) commercial use shall be limited to 426,888 gross square feet and that there be no acreage. Mr. Wische seconded the amendment. The motion carried 6-1. (Vice Chairman Golden dissented.) Chairman Dub~ advised Mr. Willard that the City Commissioners read the minutes of this board,s meeting, and listen tothe tapes. He recommended that the presenter not go MEETING MINUTES SPECIAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 25, 1996 through his presentation point by point. He urged Mr. Willard to allow the Commissioners to guide him in providing clarification. Mr. Rosenstock suggested that Mr. Willard cover all arguments during his presentation to the Commission. Ms. Heyden asked for clarification on a portion of the motion. She was of the opinion that Items 12a, b and d were included as well as 12c, e and f. Mr, Aguila explained that when he made the motion, he did not mention Items 12a, b, and d. It was his intent to delete Items 12a, b. and d. Motion Mr. Aguila moved that staff recommendation on Page 7, Items #12a, b, and d be omitted and not be required as part of this approval. Mr. Wische seconded the motion which carried 6-1. (Vice Chairman Golden dissented.) 8. COMMENTS BY MEMBERS: C qairman Dubb advised that he received a copy of the minutes of the last CRAB meeting. At that meeting, there was nothing for the board to consider. They have now made a motion to suspend all future meetings until such time as they are called for a meeting. It is Chairman Dub~'s opinion that the Planning and Development Board has far more expertise than the Community Redevelopment Advisory Board. He would like to approach the City Commission to rec uest that the CRAB responsibility be shifted to the Planning and Development Board. The CRAB can then be dissolved. Ms. Heyden has not objected to adding any CRAB items to the Planning and Development Board agenda if a decision to dissolve the board is made. 9. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting properly adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Prainito Recording Secretary (Three Tapes) APPLICANT'S PROPOSED MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSEDCHANGE (NOPC) TO THE QUANTUM PARK DRI BE IT MOVED, that the Planning and Development Commission approves the requested changes to the Quantum Park DRI as set forth in the draft Ordinance dated June 11, 1996, submitted by the applicant as Exhibit "D" to the Notification of Proposed Change (copy attached), subject to the following additional terms and conditions: Lots 53 and 54 shall be designated for use as "G & I" (Governmental and Institutional). Concurrently with the submittal of a building permit application for any lot for which commercial development is a permitted use pursuant to the Master Site Development Plan (regardless of whether the proposed use is commercial or another permitted land use), the applicant shall indicate in writing to the City the number of PM peak hour vehicle trips estimated to be generated bythe proposed building improvement and also the aggregate peak hour trip generation for all lots served by Park Ridge Boulevard. Se Revise the shaded area of the roadway at Lot 45A to permit public access to the existing cul-de-sac. e With respect to any co~Lmercial development along Gateway Boulevard, the following conditions shall apply: ae There shall be no increase in the number of free standing signs than is currently permitted (i.e. one per lot). There shall be no increase in the number of access points onto Gateway Boulevard than currently anticipated (i.e. one access point per lot with cross access encouraged). Ce Landscaping in excess of that required by the existing PID landscaping code is strongly encouraged for such commercial uses and will be evaluated as part of the final site plan review for such uses. ORL,95 20612.1 - SMW ORDINANCE NO. 96- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BoYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR A DETERMINATION THAT CHANGES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT APPROVED IN ORDINANCE NO. 84- 51, AND AMENDED IN ORDINANCES NOS. 86-11, 86- 37, 88-3, 94-10 AND 94-51, DO NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION UNDER CHAPTER 380.06, FLORIDA STATUTES, 1996 ~INING THAT NO REVIEW APPROVING THE 86-11, 86-37, 88-3, FOR PURPOSES OF INCORPORATING PROVIDING AN WHEREAS, Quantum Associates, a Florida general partnership ("Developer") is the current owner and developer of the remaining vacant land within the project commonly known as Quantum corporate Park at Boynton Beach Development of Regional Impact (sometimes hereinafter called the "Quantum Park DRI"); and WHEREAS, the original Development Order for the Quantum Park DRI was approved by the City of. Boynton Beach (the "City") by Ordinance No. 84-51 and amended by Ordinance Nos. 86-11, 86-37, 88- 3, 94-10 and 94-51 (hereinafter collectively called the "Development Order"); and WHEREAS, the land subject to the Development Order is described therein as the "Property" and is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, Developer has submitted to the City a Notification of Proposed Change to a Previously Approved Development of Regional EXHIBIT "D" Impact ("NOPC") requesting a further amendment to the Development Order for the purpose of revising the Master Site Development Plan to refleCt the addition of Lots 80, 81 and 82 to the DRI and to include commercial use as a permitted land use for certain additional lots within Quantum Park; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of Boynton Beach· as the governing body having jurisdiction, is authorized and empowered to consider applications for amendments to development orders approving developments of regional impact pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes (1996); and WHEREAS, said City Commission has considered the testimony· reports and other documentary evidence submitted at said public hearing by Developer, the City staff and the public· and the City Planning and Zoning Board's recommendations of the day of · 1996; and said City Commission has considered all of the WHEREAS, foregoing. NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Commission of Boynton Beach, that said City Commission makes the following findings of fact: Section 1. A notice of public hearing in the proceedings was duly published on the day of , 1996, in The Post· a newspaper of general circulation in Boynton Beach, Florida, pursuant to Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes· and proof of said publication has been duly filed in these proceedings. -2- Section 2. Developer has requested that the Development Order be amended to include the following provisions: 1. Lots 80, 81 and 82 as per the plat of P.C.D. Center, Plat Book 60, Pages 106 and 107, Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, are hereby added and incorporated into the Quantum Park DRI. 2. Master Plan Amendment No. 6 to the Master Site Development Plan for Quantu~npark dated June 11, 1996, is hereby approved. 3. In accordance with the analysis of the intersection of Park Ridge Road and Gateway Boulevard prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. dated April 9, 1996, as modified by Supplemental Analysis dated June 10, 1996 and incorporated herein by reference, the following intersection improvements shall be constructed at such time as that portion of the project served by Park Ridge Road exceeds the following trip generation levels: a. 1,200 p.m. peak hour trips restripe the southbound approach for dual lefts and a combination through/right turn lane. b. 1,300 p.m. peak ' hour trips - construct an additional right-turn lane on the northbound approach to provide dual right-turns. c. 1,935 p.m. peak hour trips add a southbound through lane and separate out the through/right into a through and right-turn only lane. The Developer shall not proceed with development of that portion of the project served by Park Ridge Boulevard which would generate in excess of 2,300 p.m. peak hour trips without further review of the operating characteristics of said intersection and approval by the Section 3. Section 380.06, that: Upon consideration of all Florida Statutes (1996), it matters described in is hereby determined A. The amendments proposed by Developer do not unreasonably interfere with the achievement of the objectives of the adopted state land development plan applicable to this area. B. The amendments proposed by Developer are consistent with the local comprehensive'plan and local land development regulations. C. The amendments proposed by Developer are consistent with the recommendations of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council on file in these proceedings. proposed by Developer do not deviation under Chapter 380~06, D. The amendments constitute a substantial Florida Statutes (1996). Section 4. The City Commission has concluded as a matter of law that these proceedings have been duly conducted pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 380.06, Florida Statutes (1996), that Developer is entitled to the relief prayed and applied for, and -4- that the Development Order is hereby amended incorporating the amendments proposed by Developer as set forth in Section 2 above. Section 5. Except as otherwise amended herein, the Development Order shall remain in full force and effect. FIRST READING this SECOND READING and , 1996. day of , 1996. FINAL PASSAGE this day of · CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA MAYOR VICE-MAYOR COMMISSION MEMBER COMMISSION MEMBER COMMISSION MEMBER ATTEST: CITY CLERK EXHIBITS: ORLgS 20376.1 - SMW Amended Master Site Development Plan -5-