Loading...
Minutes 12-12-95lqlNUTES OF THE PLANNING ~ DEVELOPPIENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COlqlqiSSION CHAIqBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON TUESDAY, DECEIqBER 12, 1995, AT 7:00 P.lq. PRESENT Stanley Dub&, Chairman Jim Golden, Vice Chairman Dave Beasley Robert Eisner ]aime Titcomb Lee Wische William Burton, Alternate (Voting Member) Pat Frazier, Alternate ABSENT Iv[aurice Rosenstock Tambri Heyden, Planning az Zoning Director Mike Haag, Zoning az Site Develop. Administrator ]erzy Lewick[, Assistant Planner 1. PLEDGE .OEALLEG!ANCE Chairman Dub~ called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m., and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, 2. !NTRO D U CTI OI~LO EIqAYOR, COI~I~ISSION ERS, AND~OARD I~IE1YIBERS Chairman Dub& acknowledged the presence in the audience of Commissioner Sid Rosen, and introduced the board members. He announced that alternate member, Mr. Burton, would sit as a voting member in the absence of I,,laurice Rosenstock. 3. AGENDA~APPROVAL Vice Chairman Golden moved approval of the agenda. Mr. Titcomb seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 4. AP PRO3/AL OF~qlNUTES Vice Chairman Golden requested that the verbiage in the last paragraph on Page l 0 of the November 14, 1995 minutes be changed to read as follows: "Vice Chairman Golden is disturbed about the recent trend to not require the extension of public roads to serve undeveloped parcels and connect to other public roads." MINUTES PLANNING ~z DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECElqBER !2, ! 995 blodon Vice Chairman Golden moved to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Titcomb seconded the morion which carried unanimously. 5. ~LCATJ_QNS -.A r: - - - _- A. Report from the Planning ~ Zoning Department 1. Final Disposition of Last Month's Agenda Items Discussion of this item was deferred until the arrival of the Planning 8~ Zoning Director. 6. OLD~USINESS: A. SUBDIVISION IYlaster Plan~odification (Tabled at the November 14, 1995 Meeting) 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Tara Oaks PUD Kieran ]. Kilday Kilday and Associates, Into for PuKe Home Corporation Tara Oaks Development Company Northeast corner of Woolbright Road and Knuth Road extended Request to amend the previously-approved PUD master plan to revise direct access points, alter the location and type of private recreation, change unit type from apartments to town houses, establish perimeter buffer easements and certain setbacks, enlarge size of residential Pod I and church parcel, and reduce open space and retention area of Pod 2. With the board's approval, Chairman Dub& requested that the staff presentation be eliminated relative to this application since this application had been before this board at least twice before. Ail members were familiar with the back-up material and did not require a staff presentation. Mr. Haag advised that approval is recommend subject to the staff comments listed on the last exhibit in the back-up material. 2 lqlNUTES PLANNING ~: DEVELOPlqENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 12, 1995 Mr. Kilday had no objection to eliminating the staff presentation; however, he advised that he did not agree with all of the staff comments. Kieran Kilday, agent for the applicant, advised that he requires clarification and modification of a few of the staff conditions. He referred to Exhibit "C", Administrative Conditions, Engineering Division Comment #4. This condition requires that Knuth Road be completed prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any dwelling unit. In Mr. Kilday's opinion, his understanding was that completion of Knuth Road from Woolbright Road to the project's entrance must be completed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. Item 8 on Page 2 of the staffreport (which lists the City Commission conditions) states that Knuth Road shall be constructed in its entirety from Woolbright Road to its current terminus near Boynton Beach Boulevard prior to the last Certificate of Occupancy. If this clarification is acceptable, then the applicant accepts the condition. Mr. Haag advised that he did not have authority to delete an Engineering Department comment. Ms. Heyden further advised that the Engineering Department's comment is exactly what they meant to say. Hr. Kilday has a conflict with this since the City Commission's condition reads opposite Mr. HukiIl's condition. Chairman Dub& stated that the applicant would have to go back to the City Commission for clarification of this item. Ms. Heyden agreed. However, she pointed out that if that condition could be worked out at the Planning ~ Development Board level, Mr. Kilday would not have to go back to the City Commission. Mr. Kilday felt that since there are two opposite positions, the applicant would have to defer to the City Commission's condition. Ms. Heyden advised that in Mr. Huldll's opinion, he stated what the City Commission approved. Chairman Dub~ advised that the Planning ~ Development Board does not have the power to change this condition. Mr. Kilday said the applicant agreed to the City Commission conditions which are listed in the staff memorandum as Items I through 8. He does not have a conflict with any of those conditions. He requested that Item 4 be deleted, and that the verbiage (Item #8 on Page 2) from the City Commission be used in its place. With respect to Item #1 3 of Exhibit C (Forester/Environmentalist Comments), Mr. Kilday advised that the applicant does not own the church property. The church property will have to come in for its own site pian review. Mr. Kilday contacted Mr. I-lallahan who agreed that these conditions will apply to the residential property, not the church parcel. This will apply to Items 13, 14, 15, and 16. Mr. Haag reiterated that he is unable to delete a comment from another department. Since the applicant has stated that an agreement has been worked out with the City Forester, he IqlNUTES PLANNING ~ DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEHBER 12, 199S recommends honoring this statement by conditioning an approval based on this agreement with Mr. Hallahan. Mr. Kilday agreed that an approval subject to Mr. Hallahan's acceptance would be acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Kilday advised that Mr. Hallahan requested that the record reflect the fact that the applicant had submitted a management plan several months ago. Mr. Hallahan will use that management plan as the basis of the tree preservation plan. Chairman Dub~ reported that a "For Sale" sign has now appeared on the church property. Staff and ]vlr. Kilday were not aware of the sign. With regard to Knuth Road, Mr. Wische questioned which comment takes precedence -- the Engineering Department's or the City Commission's. lvlr. Haag responded that Ms. Heyden prepared her memorandum using her understanding of the City Commission's direction. Mr. Hukill had a different interpretation. Ms. Heyden admitted to yielding to Mr. Hukill's comment by pulling her comment. Vice Chairman Golden stated that the City Commission's comment makes more sense than the Engineering Department's comment. Under the Engineering Department's comment, the applicant would be "off the hook" with the last unit, and that does not make any sense. Mr. Kilday ~aid the reality is that as the project is built, the road is built simultaneously. Obviously, the first units will be delivered sooner than later. The road is divided into two parts; one par~ is immediately in front of the Tara Oaks project, and the remaining part is to the north of the Tara Oaks project. City Manager Parker was present in the audience and discussed this situation with Mr. Kilday privately. Mr. Kilday related that in order to make this issue clearer, prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall have constructed the part of the road fronting their property. The second part, which is the part they agreed to as part of the condition of special approval, will be done prior to the last Certificate of Occupancy or within two years, whichever occurs first. The applicant agreed to a two-year limitation. Item 1 8 of Exhibit "C" (Planning ~ Zoning Department Comment) relates to the survey of the property. Mr. Kilday advised that the applicant is in possession of a survey of all of the residential property. They do not have a survey of the church site. They have submitted a preliminary plat for the residential only. He questioned whether or not that survey is acceptable to staff. Mr. Haag questioned whether the applicant has a way of getting the entire survey which was previously turned in. Mr. Kilday advised that it is an old survey, but he is willing to submit another copy. However, they do not want to resurvey the church property. They are resurveying ail of the property they are purchasing and will submit that survey. Nlr. Haag agreed that the submittal of the old survey would be acceptable to staff because any improvements would have gone through the process, and to date, no improvements have been 4 MINUTES PLANNING ~z DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 12, !995 processed on the church site. Mr. Haag explained that the purpose for this comment is that it is a modification to the entire PUD. Mr. Kilday read Item #24 of Exhibit "C" which states that the recreation setbacks are 31 feet. That comment should be corrected to read "25 feet" because some of the structures are 31 feet, but others are 25 feet. Mr. Haag said this would be acceptable to staff. Mr. Kilday advised that item #31 is acceptable. The applicant will return to the Planning 6t Development Board with the wall section on the north property line. He requested that the record reflect the fact that the applicant does not want this item to hold up the forward movement of this process. Mr. Haag responded that this process will not be held up by Item #31. Mn Kilday referred back to Item #4 for the purpose of restating it after speaking with City Manager Parker. He said,, "Completion of Knuth Road fronting the PUD must be completed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy. The balance of Knuth Road, northerly to its current terminus to the north, must be completed prior to the issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy or within two years, whichever occurs first." l~otion Mr. Wische moved to pass the Tara Oaks PUD subdivision subject to all staff comments with the modifications stated. Mr. Beasley seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Golden expressed his concern about the extension of SW Congress Boulevard. This goes back to last month's meeting with the development on Gulfstream and Seacrest. Vice Chairman Golden feels that we will be creating a problem for ourselves in the future by not extending these roads through developments, and we are limiting our options by not doing so. However, he will not hold up the project on this basis. The Commission has already made its decision. At Mr. Haag's request, the comments Mr. Kilday has concerns with are listed as follows: Condition #4 was modified to provide for Knuth Road to be built in phases but having it completed within two years. Conditions gl 3 through #16 are acceptable subject to the modification and agreement by the City Forester. 3. Condition gl 8 is acceptable provided it is understood the survey is an MINUTES PLANNING ~ DEVELOPIqENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 12., 1995 old survey for the entire PUD. (Mr. Haag agreed this is acceptable.) Condition #24 deals with the 25 foot recreation setback rather than the 31 foot setback. 5. Condition #~31 is acceptable as long as it does not delay this process. Mr. Kilday added one additional comment which he had not addressed earlier. He advised that he has already discussed the following comment with staff. Comment #32 refers to nine (9) gallon shrubs. Discussions have been held with staff to advise them that the shrubs are available in seven (7) and ten (1 O) gallons. Staff agreed to change the requirement so that the hedge must be 36" high at the time of planting. Hr. Haag agreed with this comment. Chairman Dub~ polled the vote. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Kilday commended the Planning 8~ Zoning Department for the new procedure of outlining staff comments. It provides a clearer understanding and he appreciates this recent modification. Chairman Dub~ agreed. CHAIRMAN DUBI~ ANNOUNCED THAT THE AGENDA WOULD REVERT BACK TO ITEM #5 - COlqlqUNICATIONS 6z ANNOUNCEMENTS. 5. A. Report from the Planning ~ Zoning Department 1. Final Disposition of Last Month's Agenda Items Ms. Heyden reported that there were only three items the City Commission addressed which had also been addressed by the Planning 8~ Development Board. They are: Hills of Lake Eden - The applicant requested postponement of this application until January. Poinciana Elementary School was approved. The Ordinances have also been approved. 6 MINUTES PLANNING ~ DEVELOPlqENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 12, 1995 Tara Oaks PUD was tabled. Hr. Wische questioned whether the application for the Hills of Lake Eden was postponed because they have a new attorney. Ms. Heyden advised that the residents have hired an outside planner, and the applicant has agreed to meet with that planner. 7. HEW_B LISIHESS; A. PUBLIC HEARING Eu ture~L~Us_e~Am en dmen t/Rezo_ning Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Newport Place PUD (f.k.a. Stanford Park PUD) Donald E. Hearing Newport Place Associates Ltd. Southwest comer of Hypoluxo Road and N.W. 7th Court Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential for a 23 acre, existing planned unit development (PUD) and a 1.59 acre tract and to rezone the 1.59 acre tract from R-1-AAB (single-family residential) and the PUD to Planned Unit Development (PUD w/LUI = 5) to add a 120-bed assisted living facility. Ms. Heyden made the presentation. The new master plan reflects a new 120-bed assisted living facility to be added to the existing health care facilities already on site. The addition of the 1.59 acres would increase the size of the PUD from 23 acres to 24.77 acres. Because this is a request for a property of more than 10 acres and a density greater than 10 units Der acre, it is a large-scale land use amendment which must be processed through the DCA. The adjacent land uses include Hypoluxo Road to the north and NW 7th Court to the northeast. Farther northeast in the County is a day care center. To the east is NW 7th Court and large lot single-family homes in the County. To the south is undeveloped R- 1 -AAB land, and to the west is High Ridge Country Club. A 120-bed nursing home known as Ridge Terrace, a 356 bed ACLF known as Newport Place, and a medical office building currently exist on this property. This request would change the land use in the existing PUD and the 1.59 acre tract, and change the density maximum from 4.84units per acre to a maximum of 10.8 dwelling units per acre. The setbacks which were established with the original master plan remain unchanged. MINUTES PLANNING ~z DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 12, ]995 There are two new two-way driveways off the west side of NW 7th Court into the portion of the site proposed for the new ACLF. The 1.59 acre tract has an existing 60' wide public right-of-way constructed on it which will remain as is. This connects NW 7th Court to High Ridge Road. This was done a few years ago to increase the accessibility to the PUD due to medians that exist within Hypoluxo Road. Utilities are available to the site. With regard to drainage, a parking lot has been demolished in the area proposed for the building. Several years ago, to compensate for this loss of parking, additional parking was built further to the north. Drainage concurrency certification is required; however, there is insufficient information to certify for that concurrency. Two new two-way driveways are proposed which will impact the existing access points and internal traffic flow. Access to Newport. Place is currendy provided by two existing driveways on NW 7th Court, and two existing cross-access points that allow access to the Newport Place site. The applicant has requested a variance ro allow a total of four driveways to the site. Discussion with the County Traffic Engineer revealed that they are somewhat behind schedule because of the holidays; however, the concurrency certification is expected to be acceptable and will be forthcoming prior to the City Commission: meeting. Because the project houses elderly individuals and most of them do nor use vehicles, there is little impact expected on the surrounding road network. There are no City Codes requiring recreation for this use; however, there are private recreational opportunities provided as part of the Newport Place amenities package offered to the residents. When rezoning applications are processed, staff is required to address certain issues in the zoning code. Those issues were delineated in Planning 8c Zoning Department Memorandum No. 05-962 dated December 8, 1995. Based on the analysis and discussion contained in the back-up material, staff found this request to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations, subject to staff comments summarized in Exhibit "F". Staff recommends approval of these requests for land use amendment and rezoning of Newport Place/Stanford Park PUD, subject to staff comments indicated within Exhibit "F". In response to Fir. Beasley's question, Fir. Haag advised that NW 7th Court dead ends at the south end of the PUD. ViCe Chairman Golden is of the opinion that there is private property located beyond that point. S~eve~dllesp[e,~d~ZotLee~cHeal:il~K.~ep~resented3~ewpor3LPJace, He advised that the applicant is in agreement with staff comments. 8 MINUTES PLANNING ~ DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER ! 2, 1995 CHAIRMAN DUBI~ ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION. Vice Chairman Golden moved to recommend approval of the reques~ for Newport Place PUD, submitted by Donald E. Hearing, to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential for a 23-acre, existing planned unit development (PUD) and a 1.59-acre tract and to rezone the 1.59-acre tract from R- I -AAB (Single-Family Residential)and ~he PUD to Hanned Unit Development (PUD w/LUI = 5) to add a 120-bed assBted livingTacility, subject to staff commen~s. Hr. Beasley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Motion Vice Chairman Golden moved to move the parking lot variance, Item 7-D-l, to after land use amendment and rezoning (item 7-A-1 ). Mr. Beasley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. D. PARKING LOT VARIANCE 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Newport Place Donald E. Hearing Newport Place Associates Ltd. Southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and NW 7th Court Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 23 - Parking Lots, Article 11, Section H.7 "Number of Driveways" to allow two (2) additional driveways onto NW 7th Court. Mr. Haag made the presentation. The Code section involved reads as follows: "7. Number of driveways. No more than two (2) driveways shall be permitted from any property. Where properties abut more than one (1) public or private right-of-way, additional driveways may be permitted depending on traffic volumes, but in no instance shall the number of driveways exceed two (2) on each street." iVlr. Haag displayed an overlay which depicted the area discussed in the request. Staff reviewed the request and discussed it at the TRC meeting. Staff is in favor of one additional driveway since it will help in servicing the site. However, s~aff does not feel there is enough 9 blINUTES PLANNING ~z DEVELOPblENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 12, 1995 traffic generation to warrant a second additional driveway. Staff recommends approval of the variance by limiting it to one additional driveway. Steve Gillespie used the overlays to show that they prefer the additional driveway for the purpose of segregating the service traffic from the residences. They feel there is a need for the services to travel to the rear of the building and exit out; however, they would like to segregate their drop-off customers. This is not a typical apartment complex. Most of the people traveling in the facility will be picked up by van, shuttle, or family members. While the applicant can make the project work with onty one additional driveway, they would prefer the second driveway. in response to Mr. Beasley's question, Mr. Haag advised that staff does not have a problem with the cwo-way driveway. Because of future anticipated development to the south, staff is trying to limit the number of driveways onto NW 7th Court. Ron Ehler, managing partner of Newport Place, said that from the northern-most drive to the southern part of the parcel there is a distance of 600'. There are only two existing driveways now. They do not feel two additional driveways will handicap the flow of traffic or safety conditions on the road. In addition, they own the entire eastern side of NW 7th. There will never be any curb cuts on the eastern side. A single-family residential project with 100' Itt frontages would probably have 10 to 15 curb cuts. The applicant is only requesting two additional drives on a stretch of 600'. The applicant can make the project work with one additional .driveway, but they are trying to have this separate business appear separate, and make it convenient for the people who are dropping off residents. They feel this request for flexibility is reasonable. Mr. Beasley inquired as to the TRC's objection to the two driveways. Mr. Haag advised that the biggest objection came from the City Engineer, wo felt they did not need the circulation associated with the second driveway. Mn Beastey does not have a problem with the request for two additional driveways, nor did Mr. Wische who feels more fluid flow of traffic would be accomplished with the additional curb cut requested. Vice Chairman Golden questioned the anticipated traffic generation. Mr. Gillespie said most of the employees will drive to the project and remain there for their entire eight-hour shift. He does not anticipate that employees will use more than 20 parking places on a given shift. lhe greatest amount of traffic will come from transporting the residents to doctors' appointments and shopping. The applicant was hoping to use the driveway that staffwants to eliminate as the main entrance located directly in front of the two-story portion of the building. That entrance will be well marked and maintained. In addition, because this project i0 MINUTES PLANNING ~ DEVELOPIqENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER '12, *199S houses an elderly clientele requiring health care services, they would have more occasions for emergency service vehicles. They do not want to "fight" with other service people when emergency vehicles are required. Mr. Titcomb moved on Newport Place, Agenda Item 7-D. 1, to approve the request for variance for cwo driveways on NW 7~h Court. Mr. Wische seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Gillespie thanked the board and commended staff for being very helpful and courteous. B. USE APPROVAL 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: High Ridge Commerce Park PID Joseph D. Handley, Craven Thompson and Associates, Inc. Waste Management of Palm Beach High Ridge Commerce Park PID Lots 15, and 18 (South side of Commerce Road approximately 304- feet east of High Ridge Drive) Reques~ to establish within the High Ridge Commerce Park PID exterior truck and solid waste container storage as a permitted use. Ms. Heyden introduced ]erzy Lewicki, a new employee in the Planning and Zoning Department. Mr. Lewicki said he worked in Poland as a planner and architect for approximately 10 years. He then came to the United States where he did some graduate work and took a job first for the City of Ames, and then for the City of Burlington, iowa. Chairman Dub& welcomed him. Hr. Lewicki made the presentation. The approval of this PID occurred in 1983; however, there was no development of any of the 20 lots within the PID and the list of permitted uses was never requested. A recent purchase and interest in developing several lots has spawned the need for use approval. The City's Plan allows for the development of light manufacturing and research and development activities in the industrial land use category which encompasses the M-1, Light Industrial and the P[D districts. For comparison purposes, Mr. Lewicki pointed out that the truck and solid waste container empty storage use is permitted in the M-I district, but is 11 MINUTES PLANNING ~ DEVELOPlqENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 12, 1995 subject to environmental review. There are a number of performance standards which must be met in order for approval to be granted. They include noise; vibration; smoke; dust and dirt; odors and fumes; toxic or noxious matter; fire and explosion; heat; humidity or glare; liquid waste; solid waste; electromagnetic interference; and hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Staff is concerned that although the solid waste trucks and containers must be empty stored, they, as well as the surrounding area, must be cleaned and washed down. Even with these measures, staff has concerns [hat odors may be susceptible in the area. The use approvali if granted, allows a requested use to be located on all lor~ within the PID. Ten of the 20 lots within the PlD abut the residential zoning. Although the requested use is already occurring on the 1,,I- ! zoned Waste lvlanagement property to the south of the PlD, it is recommended that this use be allowed in the High Ridge Commerce Park PID provided there is a minimum distance of 300 feet between the lot where the use is located and residentially-zoned property. Also, for consistency with the M-1 district permitted uses, it is recommended that environmental review approval be required. [t is further recommended that this use be permitted as an accessory use to a lawful principal use permitted in the PID. Joe Handley; Craven Thompson_and.~s~ciates, Jn¢,, advised that the applicant has reviewed staffs conditions and has no objections~ However, he pointed out that there is no odor problem and they have never received a complaint from any of the adjacent property owners relative to odors. The containers are. cleaned inside a building containing a filtration system. They are then moved outside on an open lot for storage. The applicant is anticipating expansion in the four lots which are immediately adjacent to the existing property. These lots are south of Commerce Road. They do not have a problem restricting the use to these lots on the south. Mr. Wische questioned whether or not the applicant has future plans to use the 10 lots north of Commerce Road. He pointed out that one of staffs objections deals with odors and fumes; and they have stated that the applicant cannot use the 10 lots to the north. He questioned whether or not staff or this board had the right to tell this applicant that he does not have the right to use those I O lots. Ms. Heyden felt she had the right to provide a professional opinion on this subject. She believes there will be an odor problem. There have been no complaints from adjacent property owners, but they are business owners; they are not residents living in the area every day, all day. Mr. Wische inquired as [o whether or not anyone has ever gone out ro the site (at the 12 MINUTES PLANNING ~ DEVELOPIvIENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 12, 1995 property line) to see if odors are detectable. Ms. Heyden said she has not. Mr. Wische feels there should be back-up documentation relative to this situation if such a decision is going to be made. Vice Chairman Golden moved to recommend approval of the request to establish exterior truck and solid waste container storage as a permiuced use in Commerce Park PID subject to staff comments. Mr. Wische seconded the motion which carried unanimously. C. SITE PLANS lq a[o~Ske~Ja~Ll~to cliff ca tio~s 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Waste Management of Palm Beach - South Joseph D. Handley Craven Thompson and Associates, Inc. Waste Management of Palm Beach High Ridge Commerce Park PID Lots 15, 16, ! 7 and 18 (South side of Commerce Road, approximately 304 feet east of High Ridge Drive) Request to amend the previously-approved site plan to add land area to construct additional exterior paved truck storage and an expanded exterior container storage yard. Chairman Dub& requested that no staff presentation be offered since the board members were familiar with this application after reading the back-up material. ]oe-Handley~LCraven~,~pson_anc[Associates, Jnc., advised that the applicant read the staff comments and objects to two of them. Engineering Division Comment #8 requires abandonment of Miner Road prior to platting. The applicant was of the opinion that replatting was not required. Furthermore, he stated that this comment had never been included prior to receipt of today's comments. Ms. Heyden stated that the Engineering Department believes a replat is necessary. Ms. Heyden offered to research this with Mr. Hukill to resolve the matter prior to the City CommissiOn meeting. Chairman Dub~ stated that it appears replatting is unnecessary, and the board members are in agreement with the applicant. 13 MINUTES PLANNING ~z DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 12, ! 995 In addition, Mr. Handley stated that the applicant objects to Comment #27 which requires the applicant to file an application for rezoning of the PID property to M-I to unify it with the existing facility prior to a Certificate of Completion being issued. Originally, the applicant was told they needed a use approval to use the property. That use approval has just been approved. Today's staff report recommends rezoning of the property to H- 1. The applicant objects to having to go through the rezoning process when the use has now been approved. Mr. Lewicki stated that in our Code, and in many other Codes around the country, one property with one operation is supposed to be in one zoning district. At the present time, there are two zoning districts for this property. Staff does not feel it is appropriate as currently zoned, and they feel this will violate the City Code. Vice Chairman Golden advised that if the applicant had to rezone the property, they would not have needed the use approval for the PID. Ms. Heyden agreed with this statement and offered to refund their use approval fee if they agree to submit a rezoning application. Vice Chairman Golden questioned whether or not a greenbelt would have to be provided if the PID is rezoned to M-I. Ms. Heyden responded affirmatively and advised that a 20 foot greenbelt would have to be provided on the north/south property lines. Vice Chairman Golden realized that the greenbelt would then wipe out a couple of the lots unless they are unified. RickJ4ar~is~ atto~ney~ ~_O0~PGA~Boulevard, Suite 8~)O,~Paln~BeaclLGardens, represented the owner of the property. This property is under contract to be sold to Waste Management. One of the things he noted is that this requirement to rezone to Iq-1 does not appear to be necessary. He requested that a legal opinion be provided by the City Attorney relative to whether or not this is a requirement under the City Code. His client will lose property if he is required to rezone and provide a greenbelt. Under the current zoning classification, this property allows the use. The use is being extended to an adjacent piece of property which happens to have a different zoning classification, but permits the use. lqr. Harris understand that there needs to be a unity of title, but when the properties are put together at different times, and it still fits within the zoning code, he does not see the need for having the entire parcel under one zoning code. It makes absolutely no sense. Mr. Harris would like an opportunity to research this requirement and discuss it with the City Attorney. Chairman Dub~ reminded Mr. Harris that the City Commission has the option of eliminating this requirement. Mr. Handley requested that the board state their position on this issue in the motion. Ms. Heyden reminded the board of a previous case known as 2404 South Federal Highway. ]4 I~IlNUTES PLANNING ~ DEVELOPlqENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 12, 199S This is the area where Gentleman Jim's was going to be razed. The property was planned to be combined with the property along the lntracoastal Waterway. A unification of zoning was an issue in that case. The Gentleman Jim's property was rezoned from C-3 to R-3 to unify the property and allow a condominium project. In that case, condos were allowed, but the City Attorney determined that the zoning had to be unified. Vice Chairman Golden wondered why the use approval was brought forward if rezoning was required. Ms. Heyden stated that staff was attempting to cover all bases. Mr. Titcomb felt common sense should dictate. If the applicant is going through use approva[, you would assume that you would be moving one classification into another as part of the process without having to go through two completely separate processes. [vio$ion Mr. Titcomb moved to recommend the request minus the two comments which were objected to (Comments #8 and #27) for approval to the City Commission. Mr. Wische seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Golden questioned whether the motion was subject to clarification. Messrs. Titcomb and Wische agreed that their motion was for approval with the e×¢ept~on of Comments #8 and #27. Vice Chairman Golden feels the City Attorney needs to look at the zoning and use approval issue. With regard to #8, the City Engineer should be contacted even though it does not appear that replatting is required. Vice Chairman Golden has a problem with the wording of the motion. The motion carried 6-1. (Vice Chairman Golden cast the dissenting vote for the reasons stated.) D. PARKING LOT VARIANCE Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Newport Place Donald E. Hearing Newport Place Associates Ltd. Southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and NW 7th Court Request for relief from the City of Boynton Beach Land Development Regulations, Chapter 23 - Parking Lots, Article 11, Section H.7 "Number of Driveways" to allow two (2) additional driveways onto NW 7th Court. 15 MINUTES PLANNING ~Z DEVELOPI~ENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER !2, 199S This application was addressed earlier in the meeting. E. ABANDONMENT 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: lvliner Road Richard Harris of Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan, Barra 8~ ]orgensen, P.A. City of Boynton Beach and Palm Beach County Miner Road between High Ridge Road and 1-95 Request for abandonment of three parcels that comprise the Miner Road right-of-way east of High Ridge Road. Mr. Haag provided a brief presentation, reminding the members that this request had previously appeared before the board. He also advised that all three abandonments to be reviewed are in connection with the expansion of the Waste Management facility to the north. Mr. Haag displayed the location map. This item was tabled previously at the City Commission level because the applicant was missing portions of the right-of-way staff wanted included. That abandonment request is null and void, and this application is taking its place. The applicant is requesting abandonment of everything dedicated to the City for the Miner Road right-of-way abandonment. Staff is in favor of the abandonment subject to the recommendations which are listed on Page 3 of the back-up material. Rick_HarJJs,_attontey3[o~ the owner, has problems with the conditions. The first concern deals with the requirement for written verification tha~ Palm Beach County has accepted an abandonment application to abandon the portion of Miner Road that is dedicated to Palm Beach County. At the map, Mr. Harris pointed out the rights-of-way associated with this application. His concern about making an application to Palm Beach County is that it is time consuming, costly and unnecessary. In reviewing the Statutes that govern abandonments, the County Commissioners are only given authority over, and the right to abandon rights-of-way that are within the County road system. The Statutes say that the County road system involves roads in unincorporated areas, or are arterial collectors extended from unincorporated areas into a municipality. This application includes an isolated 54' strip which is dedicated to Palm Beach County. The City of Boynton Beach can abandon it. He does not need an abandonment from Palm Beach County on this piece of property. This is the reason for the objection to the condition to the abandonment of Miner Road. It is within the boundary of the City of Boynton Beach, and Mr. Harris would be happy to discuss this with the City Attorney. Chairman Dub~ advised that the motion could include a recommendation that the City ]6 MINUTES PLANNING ~Z DEVELOPt4ENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 12, 199S Attorney clarify Item #1. Ms. Heyden said it is not the City Attorney's position to make a statement about this issue. The County Attorney should provide such a statement.She has sent a letter requesting a clarification, but no response has been forthcoming yet. Mr. Wische said he would like to agree with Fis. Heyden's opinion; however, Fir. Harris stated State Statutes which holds preference. Mr. Haag advised that staff contacted Palm Beach County by phone, and they stated they need a Resolution, approved by the City Commission, to abandon that right-of-way. Staffhas senta letter requesting written clarification. In Mr. Harris' opinion, the County does not have to abandon it. However, they will do it with a Resolution from the City. With regard to Comment #2, which requires written documentation from FDOT and the CSX Railroad that indicates they would not permit a "flyover" to be constructed over their rights- of-way, Fir. Harris advised that during his investigation of this matter, he learned that a deed is recorded in Palm Beach County which shows CSX conveyed its entire railroad right-of-way to FDOT. Therefore, it is FDOT only that determines what happens to the CSX right-of-way and the 1-95 right-of-way. With respect to the recommendation by the Fire Department that a flyover be built, Mr. Harris learned that the cost for such a flyover would be approximately $24 million. It makes no sense to build a flyover, at such an exorbitant cost, one-half mile from the flyover at Gateway Boulevard. In addition, there is not enough right-of-way available to cross the CSX and I~95. In addition~ ~there will be a problem with land owners who abut the right-of-way because of condemnation proceedings that would have to occur. He has begged FDOT for documentation to submit to the City; however, that documentation must come from their Engineering/Planning Department, and Mr. Harris feels it could take at least another :30 days to get that documentation. Furthermore, when the documentation is received, Mr. Harris expects that it will say that a flyover is not on their five-year plan, and there is no money allocated for it. He objects to this condition because it is ludicrous. Comment #3 requires the applicant to show compliance with any forthcoming conditions of abandonment required by Florida Gas. Mr. Harris advised that the applicant has not heard from Florida Gas~ When the first letters were sent out, they responded by saying they had no problem with the abandonment. This time, they simply have not yet responded. Fir. Harris also expressed concern with Comment #5, but feels this can be worked out. He has looked at all of the instruments that affect this property, and there is alternate perpetual means of access for the two parcels involved. Both parties are in favor of abandoning this 17 MINUTES PLANNING ~Z DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH~ FLORIDA DECEF'IBER 12, ! 99S Miner Road right-of-way. There is existing access. Mr. Harris faxed a letter to Ms. Heyden today stating that if this is really a problem, the applicant will provide an agreement with respect to access. With respect to access to the CSX right-of-way and 1-95 right-of-way, Hr. Harris does no~ understand the concern. He has asked FDOT about it, and they are incredulous. They are not landlocked. Mr. Harris stated that he does not understand Comment #6. Ms. Heyden said if the County's procedure for abandonment is by means of a Resolution, staffwill accept that. Chairman Dub& advised lqr. Harris that all of his comments would go to the City Commissioners prior to the City Commission meeting. Many of the issues appear to be legal issues. Motion Vice Chairman Golden moved to recommend approval of the abandonment for Miner Road for abandonment of three parcels that comprise the Miner Road right-of-way east of High Ridge Road, subject to all staff comments and clarification of those comments where necessary by the City Attorney. Mr. Beasley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 2. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Cedar Ridge PUD and High Ridge Commerce Park PID (buffer easement) Richard Harris of Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan, Barra 8~ Jorgensen, P.A. Condor Investments of Palm Beach County, ]nc. South perimeter of Lots 15, 16, 17, and 18 within the High Ridge Commerce Park PID. Request for abandonment of a 25 foot wide buffer easement. Rick__Harris~attomey foLthe owners, advised that he has no problem with the reC°mmendations other than with respect to submitting an abandonment in Palm Beach County. This objection also applies to the next request for Boynton Beach Distribution Center. M~tion Mr. Beasley moved to approve the Cedar Ridge PUD and High Ridge Commerce Park buffer easement subject to the staff comments and legal clarification. Mr. Wische seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 18 lqlNUTE$ PLANNING ~Z DEVELOPlqENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 12, 1995 Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Boynron Beach Distribution Center (Miner Road access control easement) Richard Harris of Scott, Royce, Harris, Bryan, Barra ~ Jorgensen, P.A. Waste Management of Florida North perimeter of Lots 1 8 and 19 of the Boynton Beach Distribution Center Request for abandonment of 5 foot wide access control easement. klotion Mr. Beasley moved to approve Boynton Beach Distribution Center (Miner Road access control easement) subject to staff comments and legal clarification. Mr. Wische seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 8. CObll*l EN TS .BY_lqEIPIBE RS Chairman Dub& advised that he spoke with Mike Rumpf and Dan DeCarlo with respect to limiting staff's I~resentation due to the fact that the board members read the back-up material in preparation for the meeting. If it appears that a presentation is necessary, the board will request it. In response to Ms. Heyden's question, Chairman Dub& said he will be able to ascertain whether or not the public is present on an issue, and then a presentation will be made by staff. 9. "ADIOU~T There being no further business to come before the board, the meeting properly adjourned at 8:45 p.m. C.J'hnet M. Pramito Recording Secretary (Two Tapes) 19