Loading...
Minutes 12-11-90MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HELD IN cOMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1990 AT 7:30 P. M. PRESENT Maurlee Rosenstock, Chairman Gary Lehnertz, Vice Chairman Cynthia Greenhouse Murray Howard Daniel Richter David Beasley, Alternate (Voting) William Cwynar, Alternate (Voting) ABSENT Jose' Aguila Nathan Collins Chris Cutro, Director of Planning Tambri Heyden, Assistant City Planner Jorge Gonzalez, Assistant City Planner Yamile Trehy, Asst. City Attorney Chairman Rosenstock called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. Because of a cold, causing a problem with his voice, he handed the gavel to Vice Chairman Lehnertz. After the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, Vice Chairman Lehnertz recognized the presence in the audience of Commissioner Arline Weiner; former Mayor and former Board Member Carl Zimmerman; former Mayor Ralph Marchese; Sam Scheiner, Member of the Community Redevelopment Advisory Board; Lynne Matson, Member of the Community Appearance Board; and Marina Haberman, Member of the Code Enforcement Board. Vice Mayor Lee Wische and Commissioner Denys "Sam" DeLong entered the meeting after the meeting began. AGENDA kPPROVAL Under "OLD BUSINESS", Mr. Rosenstock added "Questions for a Member of the City Staff". He also added "Comments" under "A. PUBLIC SEARINGS, PARKING LOT VARIANCE; 1. Boynton Lakes Plaza; B. SITE PLANS, SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS, 1. Boynton Lakes Plaza"; and "C. SUBDIVISIONS, PRELIMINARY PLAT, 1. Boynton Lakes Plaza" Mr. Richter moved to approve the agenda as amended, seconded by Ms. Greenhonse. Motion carried 6-0. (Mr. Cwynar had not been asked to sit on the dais.) MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of November 13, 1990 Discussion re Policy Regarding Plats and Site Plans Ms. Greenhouse drew attention to page 14 of the minutes and wanted a clarification. A question had been raised by her to Mr. Cutro regarding plats and site plans coming before the Board which were not in compliance with the Code and which were substantially incomplete. She read from the minutes Mr. Cutro's reply. Her recollection was that Mr. Cutro identified that both the plat and the site plan had to be held back and brought up to Code be. fore they came before the P&Z Board. Mr. Cutro recalled there were two separate questions. The first was asked on Boynton Lakes Plaza, and the second was how the City would handle that in the future. Mr. Cutro remembered that he expressed his intention ~ould be there will be separate motions on each one at the Technical Review Board (T~) meeting. If they feel one can go forward with-out the other, they will let it go forward. It will depend on what the comments on the plat that have to be corrected are. If the comments are mostly corrections that Rave to be made which do not a~fect the site plan, he did not know ~y the site plan cou.ld not go forward. In the case of Boynton Lakes, Mr. Cutro thought the City had to ~a~it and see what the constrnction drawings would look like before bringing the site ~lan forward. Ms. Greenhouse understood the site plan could not come before the Board until it was in compliance with the~Code, and she believed that was what Mr. C~tlro had said. Mr. Cutro did not have a copy of the minu~es. There was further discussion by Ms. Greenhouse and him about the minutes. Mr. Cutro clarified that the Code requires that the preliminary plat be fully corrected before it gets to the Board. The site plan does not have to be corrected. It comes to the Board with conditions. Mr. Cutro thought the Members were supposed to be approving the,minutes. It seemed as though they were going through a policy discussion, ~nd he asked whether this could be moved to "OLD B~S~NESS". Ms. Greenhouse moved that the "Approval of Minutes" be moved under "Other, A. DISCUSSION" on the agenda. Mr. Howard seconded the motion, and the motion carried 6-0. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. - 2 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 OLD BUSINESS Comments by Chairman Rosenstock Full Size Plans for P&Z Board Before Mr. Cutro came on board, Mr. Rosenstock recalled that Mr. Aquila requested that full size plans be requested of developers. That was*unanimously passed by the P&Z Board, but the Board has no% received those plans. Mr. Rosenstock inquired whether the Board could expect the plans before the next meeting. Mr. Rosenstock asked Mr. Beasley what the cost of the plans would be. Mr. Beasley replied that most of the time, one print is $1 per page. The Board was asking for a couple of plans out of each set. Mr. Cutro was trying to keep the number of plans requested from a developer as low as possible. Be intended to ask some departments to turn plans back in so they can be given to the Board at the January meeting. Mr. Cutro informed the Members that only three departments receive a full set of plans. If he can get some of the plans back, it will save the developers some costs. Mr. Cutro said he would tr~ to have the plans at the next meeting. It will depend on how t~e numbers work out. Discussion ensued about the number of copies the Board would need. Mr. Richter felt the Board would just need a footprint and elevation. Mr. Rosenstock added they would be the developer's cost. Mr. Cutro was planning to give the Members copies of the site plan, landscaping plan, and elevations. Backup Documents Mr. Rosenstock thought the backup documents should be numbered so the Members can ~ind references. Mr. Cutro replied they would be numbered by hand. Code of Ordinances Mr. Rosenstock reminded Mr. Cutro of a conversation they had yesterday, which led to a discussion with the City Manager. For the record, Mr. Rosenstock wished to recall some of the items he had mentioned to Mr. Cutro. He also wanted to add additional items and wanted Mr. Cutro's response. Referring to the Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Mr. Rosenstock read from Article II, "Site Plan Review and Approval", Sec. 19-17 and Sec. 19-20. "Duty of committee to *should be by a 6-1 vote - see minutes MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 review plans". Witk reference to Sec. 19-20, he stated the key words were "prior to the submission of the site plan to the planning and zoning board." Mr. Rosenstock stated the items coming before the Board in this agenda had only the original site plan. Mr. Rosenstock further read Sec. 19-17 (g) and stated there was a list of items in the Section which show the developer what he is supposed to do when he submits his plans. He said Mr. Cutro devised a complete listing regarding ali of the items a developer must comply with. (See Mr. Cutro's response to this.) Boynton Lakes Plaza In his normal investigation prior to the P&Z Board meetings. it came to Mr. Rosenstock's attention that Boynton Lakes Plaza only submitted an original site plan and did not give the City the information requested by the Consulting Engineer (Gee & Jenson). Other items were missing. It came to ¥~r. Rosenstock's attention today that the square footage of the building was greater than what was specified on the dedication sheet of the plat document. Mr. Rosenstock asked Mr. Cutro whether he requested an amended site plan from the developer. Mr. Cutro did not, because it has not been the procedure to have an amended sit9 plan prior to it being reviewed by the Board. Mr. Rosenstock referred to a letter Mr. Cutro said pertained to the plat, not the site plan. Mr. Rosenstock questioned whether it is proper to send a letter in to cover an amended site plan. There wire argumentative statements between. M~. Rosenstock and Mr. uutro. Mr. Rosenstock asked Mr. Finlzlo to step forward. Mr. Cutro felt the discussion was out of order and that it needed to take place in front of the City Manager. He further commented and reiterated ~his was not the place to argue about this item. Mr. Rosenstock referred to Chapter 163 and stated the Board has direction from the State to give the City Commission advice. He stated he had found, not only in this cass, but in other cases where the TRB and this Board is being by- passed by administrative dictation, and he will not permit it. Mr. Rosenstock recalled Mr. Cu~ro had said all of this would be taken care of-by, "subject to staff comments." Mr. Rosenstock asked, "Where do we draw the line?" A~ter elaborating, he said he did not think they wanted developers to by-pass the TRB and the P&Z Board without the comments and criticism. He added that text does not supplant plans. - 4 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Gas Stations, TRB Meetings, and Other Boards Mr. Rosenstock noticed another item on the agenda, which related to a gas station. He recalled Mr. Cutro recommended the Code saying there should be 1,000 feet between gas sta- tions should be changed and that Mr. Cutro knew of 10 or 12 cities with different specifications. Mr. Rosenstock asked whether Mr. Cutro took a consensus of the TRB to see how other Members felt about that. Mr. Cutro replied the TRB did not recommend a change in the Ordinance. The consensus was there should be a separation and some strengthening of the Ordinance. Fir. Rosenstock inquired whether the consensus was 9-1. Mr. Cutro replied a formal vote was not taken on the 1,000 feet or on what should or should not be added to the Code. Mr. Rosenstock recommended to the City Manager that minutes should be taken of the TRB meetings immediately. He recalled Mr. Cutro was against that. Mr. Rosenstock informed Mr. Cutro that the informal consensus was 9-1 in favor of keeping the 1,000 feet. Mr. Rosenstock called this to the public's attention because the City was getting to the point where the TRB is going to be evaded or avoided and members of other Boards are g~oing to be evaded or avoided. Boynton Lakes Plaza Mr. Cutro responded that the site plan for Boynton Lakes was complete as of the date (October 26, 1990) it was accepted by the City staff. Discussion ensued about an amended site plan. Mr. Cutro emphasized there was no amended site plan. He outlined the procedure for site plans that has been followed in the City for approximately ten years. Mr. Cutro did not know why, all of a sudden, on this project, the question suddenly arose that the comments had to be addressed prior to that. He stated the City draws the line when somebody brings in a plan with missing drawings, or when the TRB review generates such a change in the plans that a drastic redrawing of the site has to take place. Each one is reviewed by a check list to make sure all the information is there. Mr. Cutro commented about the lighting. Mr. Rosenstock argued that the plans were never shown to the TRB. Mr. Cutro disagreed and said they were shown with the lighting standards. It was the same plan that was submitted on October 26, 1990. Mr. Rosenstock asked why the footprint was changed. Mr. Cutro replied it had not changed. He - 5 - MINUTES PLAiqNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 added that a revised site plan was received yesterday at 3:00 P. M., which he had not reviewed. Discussion ensued to why John Glidden, Architect, dropped off the plans. as Ms. Greenhouse and Mr. Cutro disagreed about how to interpret Sec. 19-20 of the Code. As Mr. Cutro indicated the City's practice has been, Attorney Trehy advised the language of the Section could be interpreted to not require a new site plan. It could be interpreted, the plan with the comments attached, provided the comments and the site plan with those changes met all Code provisions and was consistent with the Code. Ms. Greenhouse thought the more comments there are, the less in compliance they are. An amended site plan does not resolve those comments. She referred to the Promenade being "pitch black" and recalled some of the comments for that projec~t had been that there be lighting. It was approved, subjeclt to staff comments, and it was Ms. Greenhouse's undersHanding that lighting is not being provided at the Promenade. She felt approving site plans, subject to staff comments, was not in the best interest of the City. Ms. Greenhouse interpreted Sec. 19=20 of the Code as clearly stating that, "Prior to the submission of the site plan to the P~Z Board, the technical committee shall review it to ensure compliamce with the various provisions and intent of ~he Code of Ordinances." She stated the better practice would be to require the developer to provide an amended site plan d~picting what he plans to build. After elaborating, Ms. G~eenhouse said it was her understanding Casa Blanca was pe=mitted for 1/2 of the lighting. Ms. Greenhouse explained the Board was not They were trying to protect the citizens. further commented. anti-development. Ms. Greenhouse Development Agreement Chairman Rosenstock had presented to the City Commission the idea for a development agreement to ensure that developers comply with what they say they are going to do. He thought the City Commission voted unanimously for that. Mr. Rosenstock commented there have been several lawsuits because the Code has not been strictly adhered to. If anyone wants to change the Code, it should be put in the Code. MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Site Plan Review Mr. CutrQ informed Mr. Rosenstock he did not compile the list that is attached to the application for site plan review. There were comments by Mr. Rosenstock and Mr. Cutro regarding lists. Regarding the letter from Mr. Glidden, a staff member asked Mr. Cutro what happens if a change is generated in the site plan that is caused by the correction of the plat. Mr. Cutro felt it necessary to go to Mr. Glidden and have Mr. Glidden allow the City to make addi- tional comments if they were generated by the change from the plat to the site plan. That was why he had Mr. Glidden send tbs letter. Discussion again ensued between Mr. Rosenstock and Mr. Cutro about the corrected set of plans. If Mr. Cutro did not review the plans, Mr. Rosenstock wondered how he could expect t~e Board to vote on them. Mr. Cutro replied the corrections were to the comments made by the TRB six weeks ago. When he brings items to the TRB, Mr. Cutro stated it is not required that a stringent vote be taken on items. He stated he is looking for input from TRB members regarding their feelings on matters. Mr. Cutro explained. He referred to gasoline stations and the backup material he prepares for the members. Reference was made to future agendas, and Mr. Rosenstock wondered if the Board would see comments from the ten TRB members in the~ir backup. Mr. Cutro was not certain. That indicated t.o Mr. Ros.enstock that the P&Z Board was not going to get it. Mr. Cutro explained there are some items he beli~eves the TRB should not have to review. He gave condi~tional uses as an example. He felt that recommendation skou!ld come from the Planning Staff. Mr. Cutro believed'there should be input from the TRB regarding the site plan. If thmre was input from the TRB, that input would be pl!ac:ed in the staff report, but the sole recommendation should come from the Planning Sitaff on a conditional use. Mr. Cutro explained that fiv:e Members on the TRB could produce a vote which could go against good planning, engineering, a~d zoning concepts. There was further discussion about staff comments: the fact Mr. Cutro is a new Plann~ing Director: Mr. Cutro's.abilitiss; the P&Z Board's review o~f what ~. Cutro's staff does, what the staff of Vince Fi~izlo, Administrative Coordinator of Engineerln~ does, and wh~t the T~B does. Mr. Rosenstock elaborated about what th~ P&Z Board does and should do. - 7 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Boynton Lakes Plaza Chairman Rosenstock asked Mr. Finizio to give his opinion as to what complications may arise in the Engineering Department if the Board allows this to proceed. Mr. Finizio replied that John Glidden, Architect, Agent for Boynton Lakes Plaza, requested in writing that the preliminary plat be also con- sidered a final plat and a site plan simultaneously. He thought the applicant felt they had enough knowledge of the City's Code to comply from Day One and move the plans for- ward. Mr. Finizio assured Mr. Rosenstock that can be done. The plans were delivered to his office yesterday at 3:30 P. M., and Mr. Finizio did not have a chance to deter- mine whether they were in compliance with the City Code. Mr. Rosenstock inquired whether Mr. Finizlo was a party to the conversation he had with the City Manager and Mr. Cutro. Mr. Finizio was not at the meeting, but Mr. Rosenstock had discussed the concept with him. Mr. Finizio recalled he told Mr. Rosenstock if the City did not receive a site plan representative of what the developer intends to build and proceed before the P&Z Board and the City Commission, the P&Z Board may be approving a project they may never see in reality. Once an amended site plan is submitted to his office and to other staff members, if the site plan has major changes in it, Mr. Finizio stated he will have lost his ability to add further comments. Developers would go before the City Commission and state that it would be double jeopardy to give them comments and then give them more comments when they submit. T~ere would be no ability rela- tive to the government agencies being supported in bringing the project into compliance. Mr. Rosenstock asked Mr. Finizio whether there had been any major changes in the plan. Mr. Finizio replied that Mr. Glidden told him yesterday that the original site plan had a reduction in the total building square footage area. As he had not seen the site plan, he did not know. Mr. Rosenstock questioned whether anyone other than the Attorney and Developer knew whether there had been major changes in the plan. If tke project significantly changes, Mr. Beasley asked if it was not proper procedure to have a site plan modification and have the applicant come back before the P&Z Board. Mr. Pinizio answered that is a determination. The problem is that the City has never received one yet that complies. Typically, site plan modifications are based on plans that are in a state o~ compliance. Mr. Beasley inquired, "Doesn't a site plan comply, subject to staff comments?" MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Mr. Finizlo replied it never happens. Mr. Beasley ques- tioned why. Mr. Finizio answered because the staff com- ments are protested either at the P&Z Board or City Commis- sion level. Discussion ensued about what can be done if staff comments are not complied with. Mr. Rosenstock's point was this would be the last time the P&Z Board would see the plans. Mr. Rosenstock commented about developers and lawsuits. He stated he was not trying to destroy Mr. Cutro, and he apologized if it sounded like that. Mr. Rosenstock felt the time had come when the City has to say the developers should say what they are going to build and either comply or get out. If the developers do not do that, the City does not want to see them. Unfortunately, that seems to be circum- vented. Mr. Finizio alluded to Tradewinds and statements made by the present City Attorney. He felt there was a dual standard here that should be addressed before the next meeting. Mr. Rosenstock commented the time had come when this has to stop. Lynne Matson, 1 West Chesterfield Drive, stated she is President of Boynton Lakes North Community Association, which has over 800 residents. She was representing them and Boynton Lakes, which is comprised of over 1,00'0 residents. Mrs. Matson stated precedents are not set in stone. Boyn~on Lakes North was almost destroyed by the previous City administration~ Many City Codes have been overlooked. Mrs. Matson had a list of ways Boynton Lakes had been neglected by the City. She named such things as irrigation, recreation amenities, landscape plans, etc. Mrs. Matson implored the Board to send Boynton Lakes Plaza back to the City Staff to make sure all of the staff comments are compiled wit~. She said the documents should be complied with ~before being sent to the P&Z Board. Codes pertaining to subdivision platting must be complied with. Mrs. Matson felt the pl~s should not De before the Board. The proper procedure had not been followed in many instances regarding er community, and she wanted to see it followed ~rom this oint forward. In looking a% the plans for Boynton Lakes Plaza, Mrs. Matson s~aw many problems. She s~tated she was prepared to come to the City with over 1,000 s~gnatures and 300 or 400 people if ~ecessary. Mrs. Matson stressed the residents of her com- munity want the Code to be followed, or they will make it a - 9 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 media circus. She asked the Board to set a precedent by sending the plans back to show everyone there is concern for the quality of life of Boynton citizens. Mr. Glidden wished to speak, and was informed by Chairman Rosenstock that he would be given the opportunity. Vice Chairman Lehnertz told of his experience on the Board and commented what he heard tonight and what was confirmed by the City Staff gave him an education. When anything was approved, subject to staff comments, it had always been his understanding that was what would be built. To find out he was misled, that was not the case, and the comments mean virtually nothing was a great shock to him and very disturbing. Vice Chairman Lehnertz stated he would no longer vote to approve any site plan that is not complete. Ms. Greenhouse and Attorney Trehy again disagreed over the interpretation of Sec. 19~20 of the Code. Mr. Richter pointed o~ut that William Cwynar, an Alternate Member of the Board, should be seated on the 'dais. Mr. Cwynar was seated on the dais at 8:40 P. M. Mr. Richter still had confidence in the City's Staff. He felt they could, through the permitting and certificate of occupancy (C.O.) processes make sure everything is done on final review. Mr. Richter could not figure out why this was before the Board as a revised site plan without proper staff review. Mr. Glidden wished to make Chairman Rosenstock wished Members first. some relevant comments, but to get the comments of the Mr. Cutro noticed the term, "without proper review", had come up a couple of times, and he wondered what was meant by that. Mr. Richter recalled Mr. Cutro had said he had not ~eviewed the plan. Fir. Cutro replied the plan which was submitted on October 26, 1990 was reviewed, and comments were made on that plan. W]nat had not been reviewed was the plan that would respond to the comments. Mr. Glidden interrupted to say he could answer the ques- tions. If the response to the TRB comments was what the revised site plan was, Mr. Richter felt it should be stated so the Board could understand that. He understood it was a revised site plan that may have significant changes. The P&Z Board did not know what the changes were. 10 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOS~NTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Mr. Cutro called attention to "B. SITE PLANS, SITE PLAN MODI- FICATIONS, 1. Boynton Lakes Plaza" on the agenda the Members had. Over a year ago, there was a site plan for this. It was extended by the City Commission, and the applicant was now coming to modify that. The applicant submitted that plan to the City. The normal procedure is that the City Staff makes comments when the plan is reviewed. The com- ments, as well as the original plan, were before the Board and would go on to the City Commission. A site plan is usually approved subject to the comments that are made. This plan was delayed last month. At that time, the problem was that the plat Code said the plat had to be fully corrected before it could be submitted on a preliminary bas.is to the Board. The applicant corrected the plat, so there was no need for him to make changes to the plan at that point in time. At~ this ~oint, it was Mr. Cutro's belief.that the site plan modification could go forward with the c~mments that were m~de by the City Staff. When the revised P~an is completed, it 'Mill have to go back to each depa!rt~en~ in the TRB, reviewed, and then each Member of the TR~'is t~ d0 a final check ahd sign the plan. He further explai~ned. In this case, because there was a gap of two months, Mr. Cutro said the revised plan was submitted to the City. He fe!t.con~ident the comments made by the TRB would cover the s~t~ plan submitted ~n October 26th. If there is a significant change on th~ site plan, it would have to go ba~k to the TRB. Mr. Cutro gave examples of specific changes. He expressed the kinds of changes in the c~mments th~ ~B~&rd was dealing with were not of that nature. Mr.. C~t~o told Mr. Rosenstock he knew the comments they reviewed yesterday could be corrected by additions to the plans. Mr. Rosenstock a~gued that Mr. Cutro did not know t~at they were incorporated in the plan. He further co,men,ed. Mr. Howard wondered whether the change in square footage wo~ld change where the building will be located. He ques- tioned whether that would be a major change. Mir. Rosenstock pr~erred that the developer answer the questions. Mr. Cutro explained there is a limitation on the plat that limits the number of square feet. He explained how the square footage c~ld be changed. Mr. Cutro's point was that the proper prDcedure on this had been followed. It was reviewed by the TR~, and the TRB's comments were in the backup the Members ha~. The procedure was followed exactly the way it had been folllowsd in the past. Mr. Cutro commented further. - 11 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 It was apparent to Vice Chairman Lehnertz that simply because the Board and City Commission approved a site plan subject to staff comments, it was not necessary that the staff comments would ever be incorporated. If the Board approves this site plan or any other site plan subject to staff comments, Vice Chairman Lehnertz asked if the comments will be complied with 100%. Mr. Cutro made some comments in an attempt to answer the question, but Mr. Rosenstock banged the gavel and refused to let Mr. Cutro further comment. Mr. Rosenstock referred to the length of time Mr. Cutro has been on the City Staff and Casa Blanca Apartments' lighting. There was interrogation by Chairm~n Rosenstock of Mr. Cutro about Casa Blanca, ~he Plan~ing DEpartment, Building D~partment, the Engineering Department, and plans going forward before they are complete. Mr. Cutro stated the situation is no d~fferent here than in the other city he worked in. He thought they should ask the City Manager to investigate how such things as lighting get changed. There were further comments about Casa Blanca and the City. Once any matter leaves the P&Z Board, Ms. Greenhouse stated the Board has no control over what happens to it. She felt the Board was the only protection residents have. Ms. Greenhouse wondered what objection a developer could have to providing a site plan in a state of complia~nce prior to coming before the Board. Mr. Cutro answered that the City is using a procedure that has been in place for awhile. He is in the process of trying to rewrite Chapter 19. The City's procedure has seemed to work. Mr. Cutro did not want to change that procedure until the City can come up with a whole new procedure. John Glidden, Architect, Oliver-Glidden & Partners, Agent f~r Boynton Lakes Plaza, 1401 Forum Way, Suite 100, West Palm Beach~ FL 33401, had no quarrel with the City Staff changing its format in terms of the site plan review process. Chairman Rosenstock asked whether Mr. Glidden would object to taking the submitted set of plans, as reviewed by the TRB, and coming back to the P&Z Board at its next meeting for approval or disapproval. Mr. Glidden reminded Chairman Rosenstock that the project came before the Board a month ago, and they found out the plat documents had to be revised ~nd resubmitted. They are already one month late in getting approva~ and going through the process. Mr. Glidden stated his clients have a lot of pressure just trying to get approval, so they can proceed with their project. 12 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACh, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Mr. Glidden took no exception with the desire of the P&Z Board or the City to change the way the procedure has been managed in the past and to require more compliance prior to the time the Board hears site plans. He stated it was obvious major and minor comments would come out of the TRB meeting. Mr. Glidden thought the significant issue was that all of the comments that came out of the TRB meeting were minor. The two items which affected any change in the site plan were made and taken before the Police, Fire, and Building Departments for their review. Each department consented to the changes. Those changes were documented in the form of plans which were sent to the Planning Department, which the Members now had in their packages. Mr. Glidden concurred with all of the staff comments. ~e stated they physically shifted a driveway a few feet and reconfigured an entrance. Those wers the only changes that had been made to the site plan. The changes were picked up precisely and incorporated Into their Civil Engineer's final working drawings, and they had been reviewed in detail by the City's Engineering Department. It was Mr. Glidden's understanding that there were mo problems with those docu- ments. Chairman Rosenstock asked whether Mr. Glidden was saying the out parcels would stay the same as originally submitted. Mr. Glidden replied there was no change to the corner out parcel. Chairman Rosenstock questioned whether there was any change in the square footage of the entire plat or site plan. Mr. Glidden answered that not one square foot change had been made from the plan the TRB saw. The only reference to a change in square footage came from a conversation he had with Mr. Finizio. There was absolutely no change in square footage from the plan that was reviewed by the TRB. With regard to any changes made in the plan, Mr. Glidden said they were: (1) a response to a specific dir9ctiv~ by the City Staff: (2) they were reviewed and approved by the three departments they were asked to take it to at the time of the TRB meeting; and (3) they were submitted to the City and were in the packages of the Members in the form of 8½"xll" sheets. If there were any staff comments the Members felt would give rise to a problem, Mr. Glidden said he would be happy to hear those concerns and address them. Mr. Glidden stated the specifically tied down. fixture locations were issue of site lighting had been The poles, fixture types, and the included in the site plan. A final 13 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 computerized reworking of the site plan reflecting the two changes was submitted to the City several weeks ago, and it went to the Community Appearance Board (CA~), which reviewed all of the issues of aesthetics and configuration of the site relative to the changes the applicant was asked to make° Mr. Glidden thought the Assistant City Attorney had clearly stated the Grdinance did not specifically require a resub- mission of the site plan, even though the applicant did resubmit a site plan. He disagreed with Chairm~n Rosenstock as to when the site plan was resubmitted and stated it was resubmitted a month ago, after they went throug~ the TRB and had the approval from the Staff Members. Mr. Glidden again referred to th'~ 8½"x~l" sheets in the Members' agenda pack- ages. He reiterated that the CAB reviewed a site plan that reflected everything precisely as it was to be. If they did anything that helped cause the misunderstanding tonight, Mr. Glidden s~tated it was that they did not resubmit additional copies of the site plan beyond what they submitted for the CAB meeting because they were in communication with the Planning Department. It had been past procedure and the Planning epartment s confirmation that the appllcant did not need to resubmit anYthin~ further. The staff comments and the detaii~d drawing they submitted were sufficient to carry this thmough. If the Board ~anted to make a change in the way things had been handled, Mr. Glidden thought it needed to be done in the form of having the Planning Department directing the applicant to comply with that change before the fact and not after the fact. Chairman Rosenstock was trying to point out that the changes had been a communication between Mr. Glidden amd M~. Cutro and not the rest of the TRB. He blamed the Cit~ S~aff. Chairman Rosenstock further commented. Mr. Glidden did not believe the applicant should be the victim of the fact that the ~Planning Department had not been directed to advise them to follow a different procedure. He reiterated tha~ the only changes were in the agenda packages the Members ha~. Ms. Greenhouse asked Mr. Glidden ii he ever took exception to staff comments after the .P&Z Board approved one of his site plans. She r. eferred in particular to the Promenade. Mr. Glidden kn~w the Boynton Beach Promenade created a lot of problems that Mr. Finizio had with this application, and he told what h~d happened. Mr. Glidden apprised Ms. Greenhouse tha~ t~ere were no comments regarding site lighting changes. 14 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 After they were through the meetings, someone in his office brought up the issue of adding site lighting. At that point, they realized they should put something on the plat for the departments review befors final sign off. They added site lighting to the plan, and it went through the departments and was signed off. Mr. Finizio also signed it off. Mr. Glidden expounded about Boynton Beach Promenade and further explained. Motion Vice Chairman Lehnertz moved that "B. SITE PLANS, SITE PLAN MODIFICATION, 1. Boynton Lakes Plaza, be considered prior to "A. PUBLIC HEARIHGS, PARKING LOT VARIANCE, 1. Boynton Lakes Plaza." Ms. Greenhouse seconded the motion. Without a variance for the parking lot, Mr. Richter advised that the rest of the project would become moot. Mr. Cutro agreed the variance should come before the site plan, After what he had heard tonight, Vice Chairman Lehnertz stated he could not, in good conscience, support any site plans that have staff comments. He felt they should ask this developer to return with an amended site plan completely acceptable to the City. Vice Chairman Lehnertz further commented and added that once they recognize mistakes are being made, the mistakes should be stopped. Mr. Glidden responded it is difficult to proceed with making extensive detailed reactions to all of the staff comments on a site plan and submit to all kinds oi documentation on a project that requires a variance to be approved. If they did that and the Board denied the variance, it would be a total waste for everyone. Vice Chairman Lehnertz withdr~w his motion, and Ms. Greenhouse withdr~w her second. Mr. Richter told Mr. Glidden there is a rider to the site plan application which the Board has been after for some time. He noted these documents had been signed for some of the other applicants. Mr. Glidden replied he signed and sub- mitted his rider with the original package. Mr. Cutro told the Members where the rider could be found in their packages. - 15 MINUTES - PLANIqING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 A. PUBLIC HEARINGS PARKING LOT VARIANCE (Continued November 13, 1990) Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Boynton Lakes Plaza John Glidden, Architect Oliver-Glidden & Partners Boynton Lakes Development Corp. North Congress Avenue at Hypcluxo Road, southeast corner A parcel of land lying in Sec. 8, Twp. 45 S., Rge. 43 E., Palm Beach County, Florida Request for a variance to Section 5-142(h)(5) Driveway of Article X Parking Lots (See also discussion in these minutes prior to this hearing under the caption of "Boynton Lakes Plaza".) Ms. Heyden made the presentation. The variance was to allow the design of the access aisles of the driveway onto Hypoluxo Road as identified on the overlay. She referred to the Planning Department's Memorandum No. 90-323 (Addenda A and B attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk.) The TRB recommended by a 7-2 vote that the variance request be approved because 96 feet is so close to 100 feet. Ms. Heyden said it was meeting the intent of the Code the way it was designed. In conjunction with the revisions Mro Glidden spoke of, she said the turning lanes were enlarged so trucks will not be driving over the medians in Hypoluxo Road. The stacking area, which had been a major concern, had also been increased. Condition of Approval Ms. Greenhouse was informed by Mr. Glidden that there are six bays on the north end. Ms. Greenhouse did not see a problem if they remained as six separate stores, but if they were to eliminate the walls and make it into one eatery or lounge, it could generate traffic and become a hazardous situation. She wondered whether the applicant would object to making a condition of approval that this would not be done. There was discussion. Mr. Cutro advised they could limit it to three separate bays. Discussion followed about the procedure and the square footage of the building. For the record, Attorney Trehy advised t~e Board was authorized to impose conditions and restrictions on the granting of a variance. She further read from the Code. 16 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACh, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Square Footage Mr. Glidden again explained the square footage to Mr. Howard and Chairman Rosenstock. He repeated prior statements. Public Hearing As no one in the public wished to comment in favor of or against the variance request, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion Mr. Richter moved to approve the request for a variance, subject to the condition discussed on the north end of the building regarding bays. Mr. Beasley seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. B. SITE PLANS (Tabled November 13, 1990) SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS 2. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location-. Legal Description: Description: Boynton Lakes Plaza John Glidden, Architect Oliver-Glidden & Partners Boynton Lakes Development Corp. North Congress Avenue at Hypoluxo Road, southeast corner A parcel of land lying in Sec. 8, Twp. 45 S., Rge. 43 E., Palm Beach County, Florida Request for an amended site plan to allow changes in site layout and design, a 4,818 square foot gross floor area decrease from 137,833 square feet to 133,015 square feet, significant changes to tenant mix to be comprised of a 54,234 square foot supermarket (Winn-Dixie), a 13,500 square foot drug- store, 65,281 square feet of retail/ office space and three leased out parcels on 11.63 acres, and elimination of the shared parking allocation Ms. Heyden made the presentation. Photos were submitted, which she presented to the Members. - 17 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 (See also discussion in these minutes prior to "PUBLIC HERRINGS", under the caption of "Boynton Lakes Plaza".) The TRB recommended approval, subject to the staff comments attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addenda C through F inclusive and subject to the following comments: Police Department (Lt. Dale S. Hammack) "1. Need Right Turn ONLY and No Left Turn to Congress Avenue. 2. signs at exits on Need stop signs at exit of parking area S.E. corner plaza. 3. Redesign exit onto Hypoluxo Road. (Public Safety) 4. Parking lot lighting to be photocell activated. 5. Redesign intersection at N.W. corner of drug store. (Public Safety) 6. Remove corridor. (Public Safety) of In speaking to Mr. John Glidden on 6 November 1990, it would ~ppear that he has addressed my objectives to items 3, 5, and 6 to a more workable plan." Public Works Department "The opening of the dumpster enclosure must be a minimum of ten feet and if gates are to be used, they must be open on the scheduled pick up day. Call Public Works prior to forming dumpster enclosure." Forester/Environmentalist "The applicant should provide a detail sheet for the land- scape plan of the Hypoluxo Road medians. The landscape design should be in accordance with the Parks Division median landscapIng policy and procedure manual." Mr. Glidden outlined the changes that were made on the colored site plan. He mounted the original TRB site plan and also showed the site plan which reflected the three minor changes they were asked to make. Mr. Glidden explained the changes. He stated nothing had changed from the TRB's approved plan except the three things he had pointed out to the Members and which were reflected in the packages the Members had. 18 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Mr. Glidden informed Ms. Greenhouse the Staff Members saw the detailed overlays, which were included in the packages of the Members. The detailed overlays were subsequently incorporated into the master site plan. At the TRB meeting, when the three issues came up, Mr. Glidden requested that he be directed to the department heads of the Police, Fire, and Building Departments. He received approval from them. Mr. Glidden said he showed the TRB detailed drawings of the areas that were changed. Ralph Marchese, former Mayor, 1901 Roma Way, was appalled that staff comments are not a part of the record of specifi- cations. He felt the Board Members should do everything they could to see that the product produced is consistent with the demands of the citizens of the City. That was not happening. After elaborating, Mr. Marchese stated that most of the Commissioners were not aware of this situation and were not technical people. What is p~esented to them should be free of any faults. It is tough if a developer is running short of time. Mr. Marchese referred to the City Departments and said they get paid for coordination and cooperation. When they make a comment, it should be part of the record and part of what has to be done. He trusted Chairman Rosenstock would make the Commissioners aware of what is happening. As no one in the audience wished to comment, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Glidden pointed to the detailed layout plan that reflected the changes they were discussing and said it was submitted several weeks ago. It was a permitted document. No changes are allowed in the document. All of the comments made by the Staff relative to engineering on the plat had been fully satisfied and submitted. Mr. Glidden reiterated that there were no comments on the Staff's report that should give the Board concern along the lines they had raised in terms of allowing the project to move forward. Mr. Glidden informed Mr. Lehnertz the plan was part of the civil engineering package that was submitted to the Engineering Department. Vice Chairman Lehn~rtz inquired why the Members had a package before them with 45 staff comments. Mr. Cutro explained that the plans Mr. Glidden was showing the Members were construction plans that were attached to the plat. They act as an under layer to the site plan. The site plan did not have to be corrected. The procedure the City was in today did not require the applicant - 19 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 to revise the site plan. If the plan was approved by the P&Z Board and the City Commission with the comments, Mr. Cutro said the applicant would have to follow them. Vice Chairman Lehnertz stated they just heard numerous instances where that was not taking place. Mr. Finizio said part of his staff comments required taking the storm water system and tying it into a public system. He asked for guarantees for maintenance of those portions, and the City did not get those. If the Board wo~ld approve this, subject to all staff comments, Mr. Richter asked what assurance Mr. Finizio felt he would need that all of the staff comments would be ~ollowed and he would have a chance to address them all. Mr. Finizio referred to the Promenade, who went before the P&ZBoar,d and City Commission and then contested staff comments. Mr. Richter.asked how it could have been permitted. Mr. Fin'izio ~replied that had to be addres'sed by the City Manage, r. He then called attention to the lighting at the Casa Bl~nca s~te. Mr. Finizio did not understand why this developer could not briny the project into compliance considering it was the developer's formal request tO the City to consider this a preliminary plat, a final plat, and site plan for simul- taneous approval. When the developer wrote that letter, he realized this would be the last meeting he would attend, and he would go to the City Commission for a final plat approval and final-site plan. As he had not seen a revised plan, Mr. Finizio did not feel all of his comments had been addressed. If the developer intends to move the plans forward con- currently, as he originally requested, Mr. Finizio said he has to comply with Code because the City Commission will provide him with a preliminary approval and final approval on the same night. A filnal approval cannot be given if the Code is not complied with. Mr. Beasley asked if it was true that at this point, it was not the policy to have all of those items addressed before this Board's approval. Mr. Finizio answered affirmatively and added he had just explained the end result. Mr. Beasley thought the end result might be an enforcement problem, not a process problem. If there is a change to the amended site plan. Mr. Finizio said the Board will never know what the comments were, the end result, or if he had the ability to effect Code requirements. - 2O MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Mr. Richter felt the Board had to rely on the City Staff. There was further discussion about incomplete plans, the TRB, staff comments, C.O.s, and permits. Mr. Finizio alluded to the M~rina project. For the record, Attorney Trehy advised Sec. 19-18 of the Code requires approval. the approval is Subject to comments, she said that would be ~the approval, that they are prerequisites to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Beasley had no problem with the process as it exists, but he expected the comments to be adhered to. If tkey are not being adhered to, he felt there was a problem. Mr. FiniziD referred to all of the site plan changes the Marina project had. With reference to this site, he told Mr. Beasley the north side of the site has been modified to a degree to where he would have additional comments. Mr. Richter thought the Board's original approval included Mr. Finizio's staff comments. Mr. Finizio continued to explain staff comments, the TRB, and site plans. Mr. Howard questioned how the Board could make a decision when they did not have Mr. Finizio's approval. Mr. Cutro interjected that the construction plans Mr. Glidden had were approved by Mr. Finizio. Mr. Finizio told how he coordinates his comments with other departments. Motion V~ce Chairman Lehnertz moved to table the request for a site plan modification, seconded by Mr. Howard. Mr. Richter stated there is a difference between tabling a request and continuing a request, and he asked whether the request should be continued. Amended Motion Vice Chairman Lehnertz amended his motion to CONTINUE this agenda item until such time as the Board could be presented with a site plan that complies with the City Code entirely and does not contain staff comments. Mr. Howard seconded the motion. Vice Chairman Lehnertz stated that the site plan currently has 45 items. Probably, a majority of them are not real important, but they exist. The Board has seen a number of instances where staff comments they have approved have not been implemented and will not be implemented unless they are 21 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACh, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 incorporated into the site plan. Vice Chairman Lehnertz felt the Board should start now to recognize that problem. This was where the problem had to stop, and the Board had to start changing things and doing things correctly from now on. Vice Chairman Lehnertz concluded by saying that was the reason for his motion. A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 5-2. Mr. Richter and Fir. Beasley cast the dissenting votes. Considering the time factors, Mr. Glidden asked whether the Board would approve the project, subject to staff comments, but further, subject to them cominq back before the Board again. Chairman Rosenstock answered, "Absolutely not, in my opinion. The motion was made, passed, and that is where we stand.'~ Chairman Rosenstock stated there would have to be a public notice if the Board has a Special Meeting. Once the appli- cant complies, the Board would be willing to do this. Chairman Rosenstock was not saying the applicant was at fault. Ee just did not think this had been handled properly. Ms. Greenhouse had no objections to coming back for a Special Meeting. Mr. Glidden stated there were numerous staff comments, which were repetitive. He inquired whether the Board was going to the extent of having them go all the way through the comments, working all the details out, and then having them come back to be at the mercy of the Board and perhaps have the project denied. Chairman Rosenstock asked whether Mr. Glidden had read the Code, with regard to the way he was supposed to submit the plans. Mr. Glidden answered affirmatively. Everytime he has been before this Board, the process was that plans were approved, subject to staff comments. Considering the magni- tude of the staff comments and considering the Planning Department's confirmation to him that they could proceed on that basis, Mr. Glidden relied on that. He was very disappointed that the Board decided to turn this project away for the second month in a row. Vice Chairman Lehnertz had heard the comments by the City Staff, Board Members, and the citizens the Board is d~di- cated to protect. He hoped Mr. Glidden had heard the Board say there were problems, and they want the problems fixed before anything goes up. Vice Chairman Lehnertz felt the 22 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Board would have no problem coming to a Special Meeting. He felt the intent of the Board was clear. They want to see site plans that are not subject to staff comments. Mr. Glidden wished that message had been conveyed to the City departments prior to them coming before the Board. THE BOARD TOOK A RECESS AT 9:55 P. M. The meeting resumed at 10:05 P. M. C. SUBDIVISIONS (Tabled November 13, 1990) PRELIMINARY PLAT Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Boynton Lakes Plaza John Glidden, Arc~nitect Oliver-Glidden & Partners Boynton Lakes Development Corp. North Congress Avenue at Hypoluxo Road, southeast corner A parcel of land lying in Sec. 8, Twp. 45 S., Rge. 43 E., Palm Beach County, Florida Request for the approval of amended construction plans and preliminary plat which provide for the construction of infrastructure to serve a 133,015 square ~oot shopping center and of a boundary plat for a .83 a~re out parcel under separate ownership Ms. ~eyden informed the Members the plat had been revised. All of the TRB comments were addressed, and a statement of technical compliance was received from the Engineering Department. Mr. Glidden had nothing to add. Maziar Keshavarz, P.E., Keshavarz & Associates, 4425 Beacon Circle, West Palm Beach, FL, called attention to an error on the agenda. The plat clearly documented the acreage of the out parcel, and he requested that the plat override the agenda. The out parcel should be shown as "a .83 acre out parcel" rather than a .69 acre out parcel. Vice Chairman Lehnertz asked if there were any comments from the public. Lynne Matson, 1 West Chesterfield Drive, Boynton Lakes North, called attention to some problems her community has - 23 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 with the plans. She wanted to know if they had been addressed. If not, she wanted something to be done about it. Mrs. Matson noticed on the plans (1) that the dumpsters were in close proximity to storm drains. She was concerned about toxic dumuing into the lakes and canals of Boynton Lakes North, and she elaborated. Mrs. Matson said the canals are used for irrigation. (2) Mrs. Matson also noticed the widening of Boynton Lakes Boulevard south to Plaza Lane. I~ the Boulevard is widened, it Will be within 20 feet of some homes. It will allow 50' tractor trailers to come in~o the community, causing noise, pollution, and possible accidents. (3) Mrs. Matson further did not want an entrance into Boynton Lakes Boulevard to the shopping center and did not want an entrance into Plaza Lane because that also abuts their community. She asked why they should put up a barrier wall with two!breaks in ~. The safety and well-being of the residents is important. Mrs. Matson stressed that Boynton Lakes North does ~ot want the Boulevard widened. (4) Mrs. Matson understood the plans for the out parcel were for a gas station. Boynton Lakes North did not want it. They do not want seepage into their canals and the fumes. According to City Code, Mrs. Matsqn said ga~s stations cannot be within 1,000 feet of any semi-Dublic areas. She called attention to a recreation area wi~h a lake in their community where people play volley ball and have boats. Robert Matson, 1 West Chesterfield Drive, Boynton Lakes North, asked whether the City or the developer did an impact study along Boynton Lakes Boulevard because it abuts a resi- dential area along Boynton Lakes Boulevard and Plaza Lane. He showed on the overlay how the proje~c~t would impact his community. Mrs. Matson interjected that a school bus stop is there, and childre,n will be crossing a four lane road. She felt it was a serious problem ~or a community. Mrs. Matson added the:se were part iof Mr. Finizio's comments. Mr. Richter noted the streets referred to are existing, and he asked if people are now taking short cuts through the community. Mrs. Matsion answered affirmativ~ely. Mr. Finizio drew attention to his staff comments and sa~id they indicate Boynton Lakes Boulevard should be posted with signs saying "No Trucks" Chairman Rosenstock questioned whether the out parcel will be a gas station. Mr. Glidden replied they do not own the - 24 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 out parcel. Lennar Homes owns the out parcel. Mr. Cutro advised that a separate site plan will be submitted for the out parcel. Chuck DeSanti, Lennar Corporation, owner of the out parcel and former owner of the subject commercial shopping center sits, stated if the 1,000 foot rule holds, there will be no gas station on the corner. If the 1,000 foot rule is adjusted, there will be a number of opportunities; including a gas station opportunity that will be looked at very seriously on the corner. Ms. Greenhouse asked what had been done to address the concerns of the surrounding residents. Mr. Glidden had not been contacted by anyone. He was not sure he could fully respond to Mrs. Matson's concerns on the spot. Mr. Keshavarz had addressed some of the items M_rs. Matson referred to. As far as the trucks, Mr. Finizio's requirement is that signs saying "No Trucks" shall be posted, and Mr. Glidden stated they would accept that. Mr. Keshavarz recalled Mr. Finizio had brought up the issue of the two catch basins in the proximity of Boynton Lakes Boulevard. Due to a City Code, they were encouraged to place their catch basins in grassed areas for pretreatment of storm water runoff. The catch basins are in close proximity of dumpsters. Mr. Keshavarz said they have addressed the change of location of one catch basin. The second was very difficult to move. Mr. Finizio suggested they place a curb to reroute the drainage water from going into the grassed area. Mr. Finizio explained the statement of technical compliance to Ms. Greenhouse. Ms. Greenhouse asked whether the Board should request that Mr. Glidden contact the homeowners asso- ciation of Boynton Lakes North prior to the site plan coming before the Board. Mr. Finizio answered affirmatively, and he elaborated. Mr. Cutro informed Vice Chairman Lehnertz that most of the comments made by Mrs. Matson were directed more to the site plan. If there are going to be changes, they do not have to be recorded on the plat document. Mr. Cutro explained plat documents to the Members. Even though the site plan was continued, it was Vice Chairman Lehnertz' understanding that the Board did not have to continue this matter. Mr. Cutro did not think the Board had to continue it. - 25 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Motion Mr. Richter moved to approve the request, seconded by Mr. Beasley. Discussion ensued as to whether there were any staff comments. Mr. Finizio advised this was for approval preliminary plat only. of the A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. NEW BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: First Impressions Day Care Center Harold Blanchette Julie & Susan Monahan Seacrest Boulevard at S. E. 22nd Avenue, northeast corner Lot 60, less the E. 100' thereof and all of Lot 61, CREST VIEW, according to the plat thereof on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and ~or Palm Beach Count~, FL, recorded in Plat Bk. 23, Page 154 Request for conditional use and site plan approval to convert an existing single family residence into a 2,330 square foot day care center Ms. Heyden made the presentation by reading from the Planning Department's Memorandum 90-350, attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addendum G. The Planning Department recommended that this requesu be approved, subject to the staff comments attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addenda G through J inclusive, and to the following comment: Forester/Environmentalist "The applicant should ad just his landscape plan to sod and irrigate the SE 22nd Avenue R.O.W." Ms. Heyden advised that comment $5 could be deleted from the Planning Department's memorandums (Addenda G and J). With respect to this comment, she confirmed Vice Chairman Lehnertz' statement that the buffering, as indicated on the plan, would remain there. - 26 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Harold Blanchette, Agent, 905 Mission Hill Road, Boynton Beach, FL 33435, stated there were several staff comments. He said the application was submitted on September 28, 1990. In November, he was given staff comments, which he addressed. Mrl Blanchette also changed the site plan. When he picked up the packet, there were more' staff commsnts. Mr. Blanchette said a lot of staff comments overlap each other, and he explained. If they have to go another month, Mr. Blanchette stated the applicant will probably withdraw the application. He was not sure what they should do because it has already taken too long. Ms. Greenhouse asked how long it would take to resolve the comments. She thought it was an appropriate area for the use and did not think she would have any problem approving it and stated she would be willing to come back. Ms. Greenhouse noticed there were substantial comments, and she was sure Mr. Blanchette had hot addressed all of them. Mr. Blanchette replied he could be back next week. Attorney Trehy advised this was a public hearing. In order to avoid advertising, the Board would have to set a time and date certain. Mr. Blanchette told Mr. Richter he did not have a problem with any of the staff comments. He added that most Of the staff comments are Code, so they have to be complied with. Mr. Richter determined, "subject to staff comments" would not hurt the project. Mr. Blanchette wanted the Board to make a decision tonight. Ms. Greenhouse wanted to continue this until December 20th. Mr. Cutro advised that conditional uses must go on to the City Commission. That would throw it back into January. Mr. Richter stated that all ~Mr. Blanchette would be doing would be complying with the Code, and the comments are redundant. He did not feel they should send the applicant through the process again. Mr. Cutro advised that normally, conditional uses have conditions attached to them. He did not believe there was anything in the comments that would change the plan that had been offered. The comments were very minor comments, and he felt the application should go forward. Ms. Greenhouse named what she thought had not been depicted. She did not think this applicant should be treated any differently than the prior applicant. 27 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Vice Chairman Lehnertz asked whether anyone in the audience wished to comment. Ralph Vallarella, 2210 S. E. 1st Street, showed where the day care center will be built. He presented maps to the Members and called attention to the locatiDns of Miss Little's Day Care Center, a day care center for Bethesda Hospital, Deb-N-Heir Day Care Center, Rainbow Day Care Center and Happiness Montessori Pre-School Day Care Center, which he said are half full. Those centers asked why another day care center is needed. Mr. Vallarella emphasized the twelve neighbors of this project agreed they do not need a day care center there. He referred to heavy traffic on S. E. 1st Street and told of problems the~ have had. Mr. Vallarella presented a photo- graph showing the number of cars that go on the Monahan property. In two days, he counted 120 cars. Mr. Vallarella also had a letter from Mr. Finizio, which contained comments about the way Mrs. Monahan's employees park their cars and what would be done about it. He said the employees will park either in the driveway next to a neighbor or on the grass, at the rear of the same neighbor's house. Mr. Vallarella further read from Mr. ?inizio's letter and said the parking problem will not be resolved, it will be com- pounded. He elaborated. When Mrs. Monahan bought the property, Mr. Vallarello said it was R-2. Mrs. Monahan had the zoning changed to Professional. It was approved because she agreed it would be a 9:00 to 5:00 P. M. operation. Mr. Vallarello stated it is a 24 hour operation. If the Board approves the request, it will make everything atrocious. After expounding, Mr. Vallarello stated office buildings should be there, not a day care center. He further objected to the day care center. As there were no other comments from the public, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Attorney Trehy read Sec. Greenhouse repeated her cant should be treated. 11.2 of the City Code. Ms. prior comments as to how this She further commented. appli- Ms. Greenhouse moved to CONTINUE the request until Thursday, December 20, 1990 at 7:30 P. M. in order to give the appli- cant time to resolve the staff comments. Mr. Howard seconded the motion. 28 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Vice Chairman Lehnertz advised that the plans must be sub- mitted and all staff comments resolved before the meeting on December 20th. Mr. Cutro said the comments would be circu- lated to the various departments. If necessary, a special TRB meeting will be called. A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 4-3. Mr. Richter, Mr. Beasley, and Mr. Cwynar cast the dissenting votes. LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING/TEXT AMENDMENT 2. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Hypoluxo Service Station Kieran J. Kilday, Kilday & Associates Samuel and Carmen Mercado Hypoluxo Road at Nigh Ridge Road, southwest corner Lots 1, 2 and the N. 6' of Lot 3, High Ridge Subdivision, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 22 at page 6 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, FL, less a parcel of land for road right-of-way purposes in Sec. 8, Twp. 45 South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, FL Request to show annexed land as "Local Retail Commercial"~land use and to rezone from RS (single family Residen- tial) in Palm Beach County to C-3 (Community Commercial) Mr. Gonzalez made the presentation by reading from the Planning Department's Memorandum No. 90-352. (See Addendum K attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk.) The City's Comprehensive Plan recommended an Office Commercial land use for the sub- ject property. The Planning Department recommended that the request be denied. Kieran J. Kilday, Kilday & Associates, Landscape Architects/ Planners, 1551 Forum Place, Suite 100A, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, stated he was representing Mr. Frank Aliaga, who was in the audience. He had an aerial, and he gave the history of the property. Mr. Aliaga owns the existing Shell station on the north side of Hypoluxo Road. The station has been successful because of it being the only service station in - 29 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACh, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 the area. Mr. Alia~a serves a tremsndous amount of people, many of whom are residents of Boynton Beach and located in the industrial parks on the south end of ~ypoluxo Road. For that reason, he wished to expand his business to allow a service station on the south side of the road. Mr. Aliaga has the ability to do a good job without causing conflicts. Mr. Kilday showed a little area just east of High Ridge Road~ which has an existing approval for a service station. It was purchased by Mr. Alia~a following a denial.o~ County zoning. Mr. Kilday said the property is currently in the County. It has a land use designation of CL (Commercial Light). In about February of last year, Mr. Kilday went before the City Commission for a Water Service Agreement. At that time, they indicated the proposed use. They also indicated that the existing 1,000 foot stipulation prevented them from annexing into the City. If the 1,000 foot stipulation stays in place, even though the property could come into the City and potentially get C-3 zoning, if approved, Mr. Kilday said the service station would not be permitted. At this time, he was requesting the annsxation, the land use designation, and zoning. Be was not asking for a service station. However, Mr. Aliaga's only interest was a service station. Mr. Kilday presented the staff reports the County prepared when they made application to the County. The reports went before the County's Planing Commission and the County Commission. Since Mr. Aliaga went before the County, a lot of things changed. On March 1, 1990, the County's Planning Commission recommended approval of the petition, subject to conditions. The vote was 5-1. The County staff had recommended approval of the petition. With regard t~ land use plan consistency, it was stated in the staff reports that it was consistent. It was also stated that service stations could be considered on the property due to its location. When they got to the County Commission's final hearing, Mr. Kilday recalled two ladies objected, and the County Commission denied the zoning petition. Subsequently, on the corner directly opposite them, between the station they own the land for and have the approval for, BP Oil made applica- tion to Palm Beach County for a service station. It got to the County Commission level and was denied. That is currently being litigated with Palm Beach County. - 30 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD .MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 Mr. Kilday believed this was an appropriate site. They were not introducing a new use into the area. Mr. Kilday had a photo board showing the property and the new six lane ramps going to 1-95. There is traffic congestion because of people crossing Hypoluxo Road to get to the existng Shell station. Based on their lack of luck with the County, they decided to come back to the City, who indicated its willingness to annex the applicant. Mr. Kilday submitted copies of a peti- tion signed by 148 people to the Members, many of whom are residents of the City. The petition stated the development will provide a more convenient facility to east, north and south bound traffic and eliminate the difficulty in crossing the busy roadway for gas sales. A new facility will be better able to service the needs of customers quickly and more conveniently. The landscape Will enhance the look of th~ property. (A copy of said petition is in the applicant's file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Mr. Kilday also presented a copy of a letter dated April 30, 1990 from Home Electric Service, Inc., 2900 N. W. Commerce Park Drive, Suite 10, Boynton Beach, FL stating the new location would be safer and more ~ractical for them. Another letter dated April 30', 199~ from Door World Corpora- tion was presented by Mr. Kilday. The letter said it was their opinion that relocating the gas station located at 1848 Hypoluxo Road would better service the community as well as their company due to the heavy traffic now on Hypoluxo Road. (Said letters are on file in the applicant's file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Mr. Kilday pointed out that the City's staff report says the Comprehensive Plan states that Local Retail Commercial is allowed within the City's plan from 1-95 to High Ridge Road. If he was on the other side of the road, where BP is, and if he was contiguous to the City, he could come in without requiring the land use change, and he would be allowed to be a service station. Mr. Kilday asked, "What is the difference?" The applicant is crossing the road, but he is at the same intersection. In looking at the surrounding uses, Mr. Kilday stated the development would not negatively affect any properties. The owner of the day care center to the south was present, and Mr. Kilday said the owner could speak for himself. They will provide a six foot wall between their property and the day care center to cut him off from High Ridge Road. Mr. Kilday referred to the photos. He explained the remainder of the surrounding uses. In terms of surrounding land uses, Mr. Kilday believed they were well protected. 31 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 With regard to the net effect, Mr. Kilday said they do not abut any residential developments and would have no negative effect on any residences, He believed they would provide additional buffering. Mr. Kilday pointed out that they have an existing approval for a service station. They are trying to put it in the best place with the best access. A service station is there. Mr. Kilday said it was not a question that there would be a second service station because they own the property that has the approval. Their current service station ts open and operating, but their entire revenue goes to the County. The revenue ~rom this station, which has no negative impacts, would be entirely absorbed by the City. Mr. Rosenstock asked what the distance is between the currently operating service station and the one that is proposed. Mr. Kilday answered that the northerly service station is located approximately 700 feet to the east. If the Board passed this, Mr. Rosenstock said the 1,000 foot rule would have to be changed. Mr. Kilday agreed. He added that the proposed station would have the same owner as the existing station. In the case of an 1-95 interchange, Mr. Kilday felt it made sense to have a service station on each side of the road. He informed Mr. Rosenstock that Mr. Aliaga owns the land that has the approval for a service station~ Mr. Samuel Merc~do owns the land being considered tonight. The City's boundaries and service area end at Hypoluxo Road. The service station across the road is in the County. Mr. Richter asked whether the City's distance code would apply to something that is not in the City's jurisdiction. Attorney Trehy advised this property is being simultaneously presented to the City Commission for annexation. The annexation Statute provides that once it is rezoned by the City, it goes subject to that rezoning and all of the restrictions and regulations in the City Code. Even if it were annexed "as is", it would still be subject to any and all other Code requirements. Even if it were now in the City, Mr. Cutro told the Members they would still be dealing with the 1~000 linear ~eet separation. The Code does not specify that it shall be located in the City. The Code says, "any service station." Mr. Kilday explained to Vice Chairman Lehnertz that even though they had been approved for the other site, constructing at the corner, which is a signalized inter- section with a full median, would allow for a far better 32 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 access situation than the property to the east. The other property is about 200 feet to the east of the intersection. Attorney Trehy read Sec. 9, Appendix A of the Zoning Code. She read that if the Board recommended approval of the rezoning, such findings should include a statement that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. According to the report from the Planning Department, it is not consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kilday drew attention to the fact that part of their request is for an amendment to the Land Use Plan to make them consistent. Vice Chairman Lehnertz asked whether anyone in the audience wished to speak for or against the request. Ann Lambert, 7141 High Ridge Road, was one of the two ladies representing 375 people, who went to the County Planning and Zoning Board last year. She also had petitions which she did not bring to this meeting but which can be supplied upon request. Ms. Lambert stated they have been fighting the gas stations. She said Mr. Aliaga lives In Boca Raton. He does not live on High Ridge Road. Ms. Lambert requested that the Board deny the rec~uest. Ms. Lambert stated that High Ridge Road is not on a major artery, and they do not want a gas station on any corner of High Ridge Road. She stated there are 20 gas stations with- ina two mile radius and 10 gas stations within a mile. Mr. Richter asked whether Ms. Lambert was aware that High Ridge Road is protected for a right-of-way as s north and south arterial for the future. He explained and said the Board had to look at five years from now. Ms. Lambert commented and then stated the residents were trying t~o save their ridge. Mr. Richlter referred to the six Ianing of Hypoluxo Road and was sure no one would build a house there. Be felt it was arguable as to what type of Commercial use should go there. Thers was further discussion between Ms. Lambert and Mr. Richter. Lynne Matson, 1 West Chesterfield Drive, Boynton Lakes North, stated the people she was representing were against the lo- cation of this gas station because the City Staff requested that it not go through. It was also against the City Code. Ms. Matson referred to the 1,000 foot rule and called atten- tion to a church around the corner and a pre-school next door to the property. If the Board lets it go she said they would be setting a precedent. 33 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECE~NIBER 11, 1990 Mr. Kilday indicated the location of the church and said it has been designated Retail/Commercial. He added there have been negotiations. They directly abut the day care center. As there were no further comments from the public, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Kilday told the Members the property fronts on Hypoluxo Road, and there is a big difference between High Ridge Road and Hypoluxo Road. Hypoluxo Road is an entrance to 1-95. He pointed out that Mr. Aliaga is a business owner in Boynton Reach and a taxpayer in the City. If the residents of High Ridge Road want protection, Mr. Kilday said they should incorporate into the City as opposed to not paying City taxes and asking the City to protect them. Vice Chairman Lehnertz felt the County had been protecting them. Ms. Greenhouse moved that the request be DENIED. Mr. Howard seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING 2. Project Name: Age~t: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Ray Flow Properties John Glidden, Architect Oliver-Glidden & Partners Boynton Lakes Development Corp. North Congress Avenue at Hypoluxo Road, southeast corner A parcel of land lying in Sec. 8, Twp. 45 S., Rge. 43 E., Palm Beach CoUnty, Florida Request for a variance to Section 5-142Ch)(5) Driveway of Article X Parking Lots Ms. Heyden made the presentation by reading from the Planning Department's Memorandum No. 90-353. (See Addendum L attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office cE the City Clerk.) She stated the request was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Department recommended that the request be approved, subject to two conditio~s.~ Consistent with the Zoning Code and the conditions of tne Water Service Agreement, Ms. Heyden pointed out that the applicant will have to submit a con- ditional use application for the two day care centers, and the building height will have to be limited to two stDries. Ray Flow, Owner, 722 South Lakeside Drive, Lake Worth, FL 3--~-6~ ~ame forward. Mr. Richter asked if he would agree 34 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 to submit a conditional use application. Mr. Flow assumed they complied with the Codes of the City and the County and would be ready to move into the City. Discussion ensued about the conditional use application. Ms. Heyden stated it was required of Mr. Flow to submit his site plan to the City when he was developing in the County. He complied with the City's comments. However, the conditional use applica- tion was not submitted. Mr. Flow had no problem with that. As no one else wished to speak for or against the request, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Rosenstock moved, seconded by Mr. Howard, to approve the request subject to the conditions mentioned above. Motion carried 7-0. OTHER A. DISCUSSION 1o Proposed amendment to Zoning of non-conforming uses. 2. Current Zoning Code distance service stations. Code to allow expansion separation for gasoline As it was very late and a long night, Mr. Cutro asked that these items be continued until t~e next meeting of the Board. Ms. Greenhouse asked whether they would go anywhere other than back to the P&Z Board if they are continued. Mr. Cutro did not believe he would send them to anybody else at this point. He assured Ms. Greenhouse he would not send them to the City Commission before the P&Z Board could see them. Based on the representation by t~e Planning Director, Ms. Greenhouse moved to CONTINUE items A. 1 and 2 under "OTHER, DISCUSSION." Mr. Cutro interjected he may bring a set to the TRB, as he thought they should be discussed at the TRB level. Mr. Richter seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. COMMENTS BY MEMBERS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 13, 1990 Mr. Cutro requested that this item also be continued so he would have a chance to review these minutes. 35 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 11, 1990 MS. Greenhouse moved to CONTINUE approval of the minutes until the next regularly scheduled meeting of the P&Z Board. Mr. Richter seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. ADJOURNMENT The meeting properly adjourned at 11:45 P. M. 36 - TO: FROM: pLARNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-323 chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Christopher Cutro, A I.C.P. Planning Director Tambri J. Beyden Assistant City Planner DATE: SUBJECT: November 7, 1990 Bo~rnton Lakes Plaza - File NO. 547 Parking Lot variance (100 foot throat) Section 5-145[c)(4) of the Code of Ordinances ~equires that when a variance to Section 5, Article X - Parking Lots is requested, the Technical Review Board must forward to the Plannit9 and Zoning Board e recommendation, and that the recommendation forwarded 1s to be Lade part of the public hearing proceedings. TO that end, this memorandum ks forwarded, =onslsten~ with Section John Glidden, agent, has requested a variance ~o Section 5-142(h)(5) of Article X - Parking Lots which s~a~es that the minimum distance from the street ri~ht-of-way line 5~ any major ingress or egress driveway to any parking stall or no any ~nterlor access aisle having direct access to such driveway shall be one hundred (100) feet. The varlance request is being submitted in connection with a request for site plan and preliminary plat approval. In this particular instance, the applicann is requesting relief fro~ the 100 foot ,'throat" requirement for a major driveway =o the shoppang cen~er from h~rpoluxo Road. AS show~ in Exhibit "A", site Dian, the easaern parking lot interlor access aisle is within 18 feet of the Hypoluxo Road right-of-way line and the western ~nterlor access aisle is within 96 feet of the Bi~poluxo Road right-of-way line. On Monday, November 5, 1990 the Technical Review Board (TRB) me= to review the plans and documents submitted and recommendation with regard to the variance requested. The following issues were raised by the TRB regarding the design of the inter~or access aisles: 1. The driveway onto Hypoluxo Road will be used by truck traffic as an ingress/egress point to access the loading areas in the rear of the shopping center. This driveway will also be used ~o access the parking spaces for the slx bays on the north side of the bu~lding~ a) since the eastern interior access aisle is 18 feet from the right-Of-way line, leaving stackin~ room for one vehicle to make a left turn into this access aisle, there is a potential for vehicles to back up into the eastbound, right turn lane on Bypoluxo Road. b) Due to the congested nature of this area, trucks exiting the center a~ this driveway may have a tendency to swing too wide, blocking left turns into the access aisle. c) TO maneuver this turn onto Hypoluxo Road. trucks will have to cross over a lane of eastbound traffic. 2. The eastern imterior access aisle provides the only direct ingress to the six bays on the north side of the building. Requl~lng a median within the 100 foot throat to separa%e opposing traffic or prohibiting left turns into the eastern access aisle would solve the limited stacking problem and prevent trucks from swinging into traffic coming into the center, but would ellmlna%e efficient access to the rear of the center and the parking area on the north sl~e of the building. Page 1 of ADDENDUM A PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-323 TO: chairman and Members, SUBJ: Boynton Lakes Plaza - DATE: November 7, 1990 Planning and Zoning Board Parking Lot Variance After review and discussion, the TRB recommended (7-2 vote) that the variance request be approved as shown on Exhibit "A" (revised blow up). The basis for this recommendation was that the six bays on the north side of the building ,would most likely be leased to minor tenants, generating low traffic volumes. Even though it was realized that these bays could be combined to accommoda=e a relativel substantial traffic and the eastern access aisle, thereby eliminating of the building, would create space. hence generating ke left turns into the that d~nying th!e variance, eta±l on the north side leasing hardships for this retail with respect to the western access aisle, 96 feet from the right-of-way line, a variance of four feet, the TRB felt that the design of the access aisle generally met the intent of the code and posed no circulation problems. Tambri J. ~yden J tjh Attachments xc: Technical Review Board A:BLPlaPLV Page 2 of ADDENDI~I A BOYNTON LAKE,~ BOYNTON BEACH, FLOR~ __ Page 1 of AD_DENDIPi B Page 2 df ADDENDI1M B BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-496 November 5, 1990 TO: Christopher Cutro, Planning Director TMRU: Don Jaeger, Building & Zoning Director~ FROM: Michael E. Haas, Zoning & Site Development A~ministrator RE: TRB Comments - Nove~ber 5, 1990 Meeting Upon review of the above men=toned pro3ect, the following list of comments muss be-addressed in order to conform with Boynton Beach City Codes: 1. Provide a copy of the permit from Lake Worth Dralnage District for revising ~he north easement area including the install.ation of project entrance sign within the easement Provide a copy of the south Florida Water Management District perm15 that establishes the minimum finish floor elevation for the construction of the proposed shcpping 3. Show ~nd specify the location, width, slope and t~pe of material proposed for the required handicapped accessible "walkway" that leads to the enarance of each building from th~ public sidewalk. 4. Show consistency 1~ represen~lng the pro]eca with regards co the architectural drawings, landscape ~ans and the engineering drawings. 5. Show on the slae ~an the setback distance from the propersy line along Congress Avenue ~o the southwest corner of the large building. Show the setback distance from the property line along BoTnson Lakes Boulevard to the closest part of the rear of the Winn Dixie building. Include the distance from the Boulevard to the northeast corner of the large building. Include on the plans a detailed drawing of each ~y~e of light fixture proposed for the site. Specify on the plans that the Slae lighting fixtures are photocell activated. 7. Provide a 5ypical f%:ll section drawing of the site lighting FDle and base. Provide a statement on the plan making reference that the pole will withstand windloads of 120 MPH Provid~ a detail section drawing of site wall. Identify the size and location of the types of buildiu] material and strucsural components for the wall and wall foundation. Identify location, t~pe and color of finish material proposed for the slse wall. Include on the section drawing the location of the proper~y line (min. 2' from any property line ~o the walll. Also, show and identify, on the site plan drawing, the location of site wall by dimensionin9 the wall a minimum of two feet (2') !n from all proper=y lines 9. Provide a full typical section drawing of the 30" high site wall. Specify the size. ~y-pe and location of all consEruculon material and structural components. Identify the color of this portion of proposed site wall. 10 Provide consistency in the location and shape o~e~ wall on the landscape, engineering and s~te plan drawings. PLANNING D£PT~ ~e ~ o£ ADD~',TDEV~ C Memo to Christopher cutro RE: Boy,ton Lakes Plaza, Memo Number 90-496 November 5 1990 Page TWO of Three 11. Specify the material and color proposed for both decorative entry driveways. 12. Specify the color and manufacturers n~me and number proposed for the texture stucco and raised stucco medallion shown on the building elevation drawings. 13. The outline, configuration and material shown and identified on the drawing(s) of the pro]eot submitted with the plan(s) for final siqn-off shall match in every respect the colored drawing(s) approved by the City Commission during the approval process of the prolect. The color of each exterior finish material shown on the final sign-off plans shall be identified by name color number and manufacturers name which shall match in every respect with the color(s) shown on the drawing(s) approved by the City Commission. A manufacturer's color chart showin~ and identifying all approved color(s; shall be submitted witk the plans for final sign-off. 14. Place a note on the sire plan drawing stating that the proposed outFarcel buildings will match the main shopping center buildings in architectural design and color combination. 15. Sp~clfy the cclor of the tenant signage. Provide ~ note on the plans stating that all s~gnage shall comply with the Boynton Beach Sign Code. 16. Show on the site plan the locaalon of the handicapped ramps that are required at 100 feet interval along the face of the main building. Identify the length, width and slope of each ramp. Include the t~pe of material proposed for the ramps. 17. -Show on the site plan and sheet no. 2 the location, width, length and elevation o2 the level platform that ls required at the entrance to each building and all tenant spaces. 18. Specify that the handicapped ~arking sign will be installed seven feet from the grade to the bottom of the sign. 19. Specify on the site plan the width and length ~f all landscape areas. 20. Specify on the landscape plan the location o~ the la~rn grass or other architectural treatment proposed to be installed directly in front of the large building. 21. Specify on the landscape plan the source of ~rrigatlon wa~er for the landscaping material. 22, Show the s~ze and location of the required unobstructed line of slte triangle at all ingress/egress driveways and public right-of-way i~hterse~tions. Specify the height and size of the unobstructed line of sight space within the triangle. 23. Provide a detailed plan v~ew drawing of the dumpsuer enclosure and pad. Identify the overall height, width and length of the enclosure. Show ten feet (10') clear minimum width of the enclosure opening. Clear opening width must be measured inside of ga~e and post material or meet the Public Works Department specifications for the size of compactor enclosure. Where ~ates are proposed, specify the method of holding the enclosure ga~es in the open and closed position. Specify on the plans the color proposed for the dumpster enclosures. Page 2 of ADDENDIIvi C Memo to christopher Cutro RE: Boston lakes Plaza, ~eao number 90-496 November 5, 1990 Page Three of Three 24. Show on the site plan drawing the locatio~ of the required fire lane. specify and show on the site plan the fire lane pavement markings and signage. 25. Show on the south and east elevation drawing the roof line and the location and size of proposed roof top mechanical equipment. 26. Ilex trees should have ~ minimum height of eight feet (8') in planting. 27. Landscaping proposed to be Installed within an easement shall be allowed only after consent of all Utl!ity companies that have access rlght to use the easement, Page 3 of ADDENDL!vI C ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT M~ORA~DUM NO. 90-271 To: J. Scott Miller City Manager From: Vincent A. Finizio ~dministrative Coordinano: of Engineering November 3, 1990 PAGE #1 tn accordance with the City oz Boynton Reach, Cod~ of Ordinances, Chmpter 19, Secgion 19-7. "Plan Required" and 19-i7.i. "Fee co ACcompany Plan", imcluding Chapter B, Article X, "Boynton Beach Parking Log Regulations". Section 5-t42. "Required Improvements" (inclusive), the applicant for the above referenced pro~ec~, shall submit the following plan revisions, technical data, information and requested engineering details as follows: Page 1 of ADDENDLI~ D PAGE #2 7. The applicant shall provide an affadavit agreeing to the perpetual maintenance situated within the public rights-of-way(s) of Boynton Lakes Boulevard and Plaza drainage system located within the public rights-of-way(s) of Boynton Lakes Blvd. roadway widening project(s). In accordance with Chapter 22. "Streets~', Section 22-20 (b), the applicant shall reimburse the City of Boynton Beagh for those (page 1560 of Chapter 22. "Streets") 8. The pavemen~ markings for the expansion and/or modification of the publicly over the subject lands. Palm Beach County Traffic, Lake Worth Drainage District Gee & Jenson, One Harvard Circle, P.O. Box 24600, West Palm Beach, Florida 33416- 4600, telephone number (307) 683-3301 -Richard Staudin~er, P.H., the stormwa:a= (inclusive). Section 5-142 (k), "Handicap Requirements". Additionally, provide a striping detail Section 5-142 (L), "Parking Lot Striping". Reference Section 5-t42 (g), "Striping 5-142 (m), "Required Fire Lanes" and Section 5-142 (g), "Fire Lane Cons:ruction "Required Lighting" and Section 5-142 (g), "Lighting Standards". An illumination (photometric) plan shall be submitted by the applicant. Said plan shall accurately Section t9-17 (k), "Technical and Engineering Data", including Section 19-t7 (g), Page 2 of ADDENDUM D BOYNTONLAKES PLAZA November 3. 1990 TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS - CONT'D PAGE #3 13 ....... which states: "Indication of exterior lighting standards and devices adequat~ co revzew possible hazards and disturbances to the public and adjacent properties, tt should be noted that the proposed location of approximately four (4) light poles (standards) will adversely affect and negate the required two (2) foot vehicle overhang areas, as these poles are placed within the paved parking areas. The two (2) foot overhang is a code requirement of Chapter 5, Article X, Section 5-142 (g) "Construction Standards and Associated Layout Appendix", Reference Section 5-L42. "Required Improvements", sumsecKion 5-I42 (i), (1), which states: "Parking lots shall be designed to meet or exceed the dimensional requirements for stalls, drive- ways, and access aisles as provided for in City standards". Relocate the lighting standards [poles) into appropriate areas that will not agverseiyi~pact the :we (2) foot over-hang Layout requirement. Revise plans accordingly. 14. In accordance with Appendix "C"-Subdivisio~ and Platting Regulations, :he appli- cant shall submit (reference Section 7. Submisbiom of Final Plat) to the City. a surety or performance bond obtained from a company having Best's rating of ,aAA, and authorized to do business in the State of Florida ....... (pages 2113 & 2114, City ~i Boynton Beach, Code of Ordinances. Should the applicant desire to submit an alter- naKe form of surety, the surety shall be approved by the City Con~ission in conjunct- ion with this office, the City Attorney's office and the City Mammger's offmce. The suraKy posted in whatever form shall remain in full force and affect until City final approval. The applicant is herein directed to con:ac= the City Attorney, Mr. James Cherof. Esquire for guidance and ~irection in ma~ters per=aiming to said alternate surety. (City Attorney's telephone number is (407) 738-7405 or (407) 276- 9400) Surety shall be in an mmoun~ equal to 110% of the Engineer's Opinion of Costs. 15. The Developer shall formally execute the "Developer's Agreement" con,aimed within the site plan submittal application in accordance with the Ordinance adopted by City Commission, relative ~o executing the rider to the site plan application. By copy of these co~men~s to the City Attorney's office, the applicant is hereby directed xo contact the City Attorney, relative to whether or not this "Rider" shall be aotarized including the execufion of the witness signature line no: ye~ signed. 16. Comply with the City of Boynton Beach, Ftorida~ Consulting Engineer's T.R.B. commen~s, attached and made a par: herein. 17. Provide written verification from Palm Beach County Traffic, Charles Cantrell, P.E., Signalization Specialist, that the $[8,000.00 line item listed within the "Engineer's Opinion of Costs" published by Keshavarz & Associates is adequate ensure the ins:allation (Developer's fair share) of the three (3) traffic szgnals indicated under the heading "Street Lighting: Congress Avenue & Hypoluxo Road". I8. The Developer has requested that his submission be considered both a prelim- inary and final plat submission in conjunction with site plan approval. ~en the submisszon complies with the requirements se~ forth within our City's Code of Ordinances, a quantity of six (6) sets of construction plans having Health Bereft- men: approval and time stable mylar plat document(s) formaily executed shall be delivered co this Department in order to facilitate and expedite the platting process. Reference: Appendix "C", Article VIII, Section 7. "Submission of Final Plat". Technical compliance with the provisions of the subdivision and platting process must occur prior to review by the Planning and Zoning Board as the appii- cant desires to receive simultaneous approval of preliminmry and final ~lat, there- for inunediatety after the T.R.B. has provided comments to the applicant, the appli- cant mus£ reconcile the plans with staff comments (platting) and as quickly as possible, re-submit the corrected plans Ko my ofiice. I will promptly schedule a staff review of the plans, ghould the plans comply with all staff co.monKs, this Department will promptly write a letter of technical compliance and request that the Director of Planning, place this matter before the F & Z Board. Additionally, will create an agenda item for City Commission review and acceptance of the g~e- linary plat, ~ncluding a resolution accepKing the formal final plat submission, Ko be ruled upon by the City Commission during the same meeting. 19. Indicate the point(s) of ingress/egress for Delivery Trucks. Delivery trucks will be prohibited from utilizing City owned and operated roaaways that are a par~ of the roadway circulation system for the residential P.U.D. Delivery trucks in the form of "Tractor/Trailer" trucks should enter this site from Rypoluxo goad or Congress Avenue. Provide situate directing trucks ~o the appropriate ingress/egress approach areas. This shall be a condition of City permit(s) to alter and construct within the public rights-of-way, in accordance with Chapter 22. "Streets" £ncluding the submission of a one year quarantee for pavement alterations. Sec. 22-26 (i), Page 3 of ADDENDII~ D BOYNTON LAKES PLAZA November 3, 1990 TECHNIC. AL REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS - CONT'D Page #4 20. The pavement markings along plaza lane (proposed chevron) does not pro- vide a suitable storage lane for motorvehicles to enter the S.W. ingress/egress approach. Revise plans accordingly. END OF T.R.B. COMMENTS Respectfully submitted, Vincenn A. Finmzio ~ cc: Christopher Cutro, Director of Planning attachments: Gee and Jenson Analysis of Plat/Drainage for Roadway Widening /vaf Page 4 6f ADDENDI1M D ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MEMOR~:DUM NO. 90-271, NOVEMBER 6, 1990 ADDENDUM TO: FROM: RE: J. Scott Miller November 6, 1990 City Manager Addendum Vincent A. Finlzio Administrative Coordinator of Engineering Technical Review Board Comments Boynton Lakes Plaza - Site Plan Boynton Lakes Plaza - Pre]{mluary/Final Plat Documents Keshavarz & Associates, Inc. (Developer's Engineer) Oliver - Glidden & P]mnners, Architects and Planners, Inc. 21. In conjunction with the Palm Beach County Traffic Division and this office, the submitted plat documents relative to Tract "A" shall depict on the boundary plat an extension of Parcel "B" northward continuing through Tract "A" to Tract "A"s North boundary line and be labeled Parcel "B" dedicated right-of- way. Additionally, Parcel "A" shall be extended in a southerly direction to the Southern boundary line of Tract ~'A" and be labeled Parcel "A" dedicated right-of-way. Please utilize the autached copy of the subject dedication area drawn upon said plan by Palm Beach County Traffic Division. END OF ADDENDUM TO T.R.B. COMMENTS Respectfully submitted Vincent A. Finizio VAF/jm CC: Christopher Cutro, Director of Planning Maziar Keshavarz, Keshavarz & Associates, Inc. Page 5 of ADDENDLM D .-Page 6 of ADDENDII~I D GEE&JENSON November 2, 1990 City of Boynton Beach Post Offlce Boa 31¢ Boynton Beach., ~Florlda 33425-0310 Attn: Vincent A. Finiz~o Administrative Coordinator of Engineering Re: Boynuon Lakes Plaza Plat Submission Dear Mr. Finizio: Per your letter for October 31, 1990 we have conducted a -~ ~w ~v. of the preliminary plat. The following are our Need bearing call along north section line of 8-45-43. 2. Denote "Dla: limits". Dedication language for Trac~ A and Tract B should follow similar format for opening calls for each description. Need plat information for Hv~oluxo Road uo be shown and all ~iaZ informa~lon to be referenced for road right-of- ways in descriptions thereof. Very ~urs, ~ _ WRS/nan 90-025 Page 7 of ADDENDLIvl D On~ Hanza,'d C,r~,~ West Page 8 of ADD]~,!DI/~i D MEMO~IANDUM Utilities #90-645 TO: FROM: Chris Cutro. Planning Director John A. Guidry, Director of Utilities November 6. 1990 SUBJECT: TRB Review - Boynton Lakes Plaza and Plat We can approve this project, sub3ect %o the following condition~: Add a second valve on all hydrant lines whenever the hydrant is greatev than 20 feet f~om the m~ln line south most hydrants. Provide fire flow calculations, Relocate sewers and/or p~ovide Hold Harmless Agreement and use ductile iron pipe at all conflict points. Reduced pressure backflow preventers will be required. Ws recommend dual units in parallel so service ls not interrupted during testing, Double check valve assembly will be required on the fire service C-900 DR 18 P.V.C. sanitary sewers will be required on west most sewer runs Jue to unsure nature of ~oil conditions. Ellmlinate 90~ bends on fire hydrants where possible. Relocate loop and street cut on water mai~ ag southwest corner to eliminate long parallel runs in congested area. Add recent ~evisions to City of Boynton Beach Criteria Sheets details on sheets 11 and 12. SHEET 13 A. P.V.C. water mains are not allowed. B. Manholes shall be painted. C. Remove reference to City of Riviera Beach. box lieu corporation stop on all services under pavement. D.E.R. permitting is required Availability of water may no% be until June, 1991 depending on East Treatment Plant up-rating and REGARDING PLAT 1. Easements must include water meter locations 2. If loop is revised, change must be reflected in plat. cc: Peter Mazzella File ADD]~D[~4 E if TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT M~MQRANDUM NO. 90-326 Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Christopher cutro, A.I.C.P.~_ Planning Director ~ Tambri J. Heyden Assistant City Planner November 8, 1990 Boy, non Lakes Plaza - File No. 556 Site Plan Modification - parking/building change Please be advised of the following Planning DeparEment commen~s with respect to the above-referenced requesn for a site plan modification: 1. A graphic scale needs no be added to all sheets submitted. Site plan application, page 5, item ~2. 2. Indicate any existing driveways that are within 100 feet of the site, such as the driveway onto Plaza Lane which serves Bo~rnLon Lakes PUD and the driveway on=o Boston Lakes Boulevard which also serves Boynton Lakes PUD. Site plan application, page 5. item ~4. 3. Add a note to the elevations that all rooftop and ground-mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened and baffled. Comprehensive Plan, Future Land use Element, P~licy 1.17.7. 4. A ~urure slte plan approval will be required for development of the ouLparcels, changes in the parking lot layout and design in the vicinity of the outparcels and the Winn Dixie 5. As per the previous site plan approval, it Ls recommended that the developer post a bond for future traffic signals at the following intersections: a) Congress Avenue and Plaza Lane b) Hypoluxo Road and Boy~5on Lakes Boulevard 6. It is recommended that the eastbound, left turn lane on Plaza Lane ln=o the shopping cen~er and the westbound, left =urn lane on Plaza Lane, be constructed as shown on the previously approved site plan (see Exhibit "A"). 7. AS a point of information, the number of ouLparcels proposed as part of the requested site plan modification 1s greater than the number of ouzparcels proposed on the previously approved site plan. 8. A sidewalk shall be required along the property's Hypoluxo Road ~rontage. Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, Policy 1.11.9. 9. Add a note 5o the plans that parking lot lighting along the eas~ and south property lines will be shielded from the adjacent residences. Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, Policy 1.17.7. 10. The driveway proposed onno BoLrnton Lakes Boulevard does no~ meet the requirement of Article X - Parking Lots, Section 5-142(h)(3). It mus= be relocated north, a mlnlmum of 180 feet from the lnLersecLlng rights-of-way lines of Boyn=on Lakes Boulevard and P~aza Lane, or the applicant must apply for a parking lot variance. Page 1 of ADDENDII~ F PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-326 TO: SUBJ: DATE: Chairman and Members, Boynton Lakes Plaza November 8, 1990 Planning and Zoning Board Parking/Building Change No fire lane has been provided along the 6 retail bays on the north side of the shopping center. The parking spaces in this area must be removed or the applicant must apply for a parking lot variance. Since no surplus of parking spaces exists, any parking spaces deleted must be provided somewhere else on site. Article X - Parking Lots, Section 5-142(ml. 12. The design of ingress/egress points for truck traffic is a problem which needs ~o be addressed, particularly at the driueway onto Hypoluxo Road and access to the rear of the shopping center. Several solutions were discussed at the TRB meeting for the applicant to consider. They are as follows: a) add an additional egress-only driveway onto Boynton Lakes Boulevard, so that trucks may enter the rear of the cen~er from the driveway onto Boynton Lakes Boulevard and exit a5 the additional driveway located further north, b) shift the Winn Dixie building south to open -up access to the loading zones in the rear, c) move the Winn Dixie building along the south property line rather than the east property line so that it faces Hypoluxo Road to improve rear access, and d) enlarge the turning radius at the driveway onto Hypoluxo Road as shown on the sketch included in the parking lot variance subm'itted to prevent trucks from running over the Hypoluxo' Road median when exiting a~ this driveway. 13. An internal circulation problem exists east of the Congress Avenue driveway where five access aisles merge, but don't align safely. It is recommended that this area be redesigned to form proper intersections. Comprehensive Plan, Future Land Use Element, Objective %.18. Tambri J. He'den ' ~ tjh Attachment A:BLPlaSPM Page 2 of ADDENDUM F Page 3 of ADDENDLI~ F Page 4 of C TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-350 Chairman and Members P,,lanning and Zoning Board Christopher cutro, A.I.C.P. Planning Director Tambri J. Heyden Assistant City Planner December 4, 1990 First Impressions Day Care Center Conditional Use - File No. 549 IntroductloD: Harold Blanchette, agent for Julie and Susan Monahan, property owners, is requesting conditional use approval to convert a single-family home, located on a .599 acre parcel at the northeast corner of SeacresE Boulevard and S.E. 22nd Avenue 12214 S. Seacrest Boulevard), lnto a 2,330~square foot day care center. The day care facility will serve ~ maximum of 90 children. The zoning of the property, C-l, Office and Professional Commercial District, pe~its day care centers subject tS conditional use approval. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning fsee attached maD): A~utting the subject parcel to the north is a nursing registry servlce, Ail Care Nursing, zoned C-1. TO the eas~ are single-family homes, zoned R-2, Slngle and Two Family Dwelling District and S.E 1st Street. To the south is S.E. 22nd Avenue. Farther south is Drs. Glass and St~Perek Medical Office Building, zoned C-l, and a single family home zoned R-2. TO the west is Seacres~ Boulevard. Farther west is High Point PUD. multi-family homes. Standards for Evaluating Conditional Uses: Section 11.2.E of the Zoning Code contains the following standards to which conditional uses are required to conform. Following each of these standards · s the Planning Department.s evaluation of the application as to whether it would comply with the particular standard. The Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission shall consider only such conditional uses as are authorized under the terms of these zoning regulations, and, in connection therewith, may grant conditional uses absolutely or conditioned upon the faithful adherence to and of fulfillment of such res=fictions and conditions including, but not limited to, ~he dedication of property for streets, alleys, and recreatmon space, and sidewalks, as shall be necessary for the protection of the surrounding area and the citizens, general welfare, or deny conditional uses when not in harmony with the intent and purpose of this section. In evaluating an application~for conditional use, the Board and Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed use on ~the general health, s~fety, and welfare of the community, and make written findings certifying that satisfactory provision has been made concerning the following standards, where 1 Ingress and egress ~o the subject property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automobile and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. A new, two-way driveway from S.E. 22nd Avenue will provide egress and the only ingress to the day care facility and parking lot. To serve the drop-off area in front of the building, the applicant proposes to retain a~ existing, egress-only driveway onto SeacresE Boulevard. The one-way traffic flow and design of the drop-off area enables children ~o be picked up and dropped off adjacen% to the front of the building zn a safe, efficient Page 1 of ADDENDUM G PM No. 90-350 -2- December 4, 1990 Due to the location of the existing building and the requirement to preserve the banyan tree in the vicinity of the ~rop-off area, a pass-by lane could no~ be provided to prevent vehicles exiting onto Seacrest Boulevard from being momentarily delayed, by a vehicle that is stopped to drop off or pick up children. However, since an alternate egress is provided onto S.R. 22nd Avenue, suchdelays can be avoided. The traffic flow design of the attached site plan is a product of revisions made by the applicant which were encouraged through a preliminary Technical Revlew Board review of the site plan. The orlginal site plan was accompanied by a parking lot variance to retain an existing driveway onto Se~crest Boulevard, slnce no driveway was originally proposed onto S.E. 22nd Avenue. This existlug driveway, the only ingress proposed on the original site plan, posed problems with access to the dumpster and safety problems on seacrest Boulevard, since vehicle trips will be increased by 132 per day when comparing the proposed day care center use to the existing residential use The refinements to the site plan eliminated the need for a parking lot variance and resulted in better traffic circulation, including emergency access and refuse service, further discussed in item ~3 below. Regarding pedestrian safety, there is an ex~sting s~dewalk along the seacrest Boulevard street frontage. A sidewalk~is proposed along the S.E. 22nd Avenue street frontage to connect ~o the existing sidewalk, Internally, no sidewalks are proposed to link the parking lot to the building entrances. However~ because of the small size of the site and the close proximity ~f the parking area =o the building entrances, safety is not jeopardized. With respec~ to traffic, ~ traffic statement was submitted Eo document the total number of trips qenerated by the|2,300 square foot day care center This statement was reviewed b~ Palm Beach County who verified that this projec= is exemp= from the 1990 Traffic Performance Standards Ordimance and the Municipal Implementation Ordinance SlnCe the total net tr~ps Of 142, does no5 exceed 500 trips per day. As a polnt of information, exemption from the County's traffic ordlmance constitutes exemption from the city's concurrency ordinance Off-street parking and loading areas where required, with particular attention to the ltems in subsection D.1 above, and the economic, glare, noise, and odor effects the conditional use would have on adjacent and nearby propers~es, and the City as a whole Sight parking spaces are required by code for this use, plus an adequate drop-off area. An adequate drop-off is proposed, as previously discussed, as well as a surplus Of three parking spaces. Since the ages and the number of children per age group that will be a=tending this facility are unknown at this time, it ls difficult to compare the City's parking requirement for this use with the number of personnel that will be required for supervision. However, it is an=~clpated that between one-half and three-quarters of the parking spaces proposed will be occupied by staff based on the projected capacity of 9~ children. With respec5 to nolse, an H.R.S. State of Florida ~epar~ment of Health and Rehabilitative services) required outdoor play area is to be located in the rear (east) of the building. As previously discussed, the adjacent land uses ~o the eas~ are single family homes and the right-of-way for S.E, 1st Street. It is anticipated that noise from the play area will be a~dible from the single family residences. This impac~ will be partially minimized by a SlX foot high, concrete block wall with vines that ~s proposed along the southeast property lines and a four foot high chain link fence with shrubs and trees that is proposed along the eas~ proper~y line (see also item ~5 below). Page 2 of ADDI~INDUM 'G PM No. 90-350 -3- December 4, 1990 The glare and economic effects that this conditional use will have on the adjacent properties and on the City, will be discussed under Item #6 below. Refuse and service areas, with particular reference 5o the items in subsection D.1 and D.2 above. The attached site plan reflects the revisions recommended to the applicant by the Public Works Department as part of the preliminary revlew of the original site plan. The driveway onto S.E. 22nd Avenue makes the proposed dumpster location ideal with respect to traffic and pedestrian safety, sanitation vehicles can enter and exit the-site without having to approach the main buildinq mnurance and the drop-off area, minimizing conflict with on-sl=e vehicle and pedestrian patterns. Therefore, refuse and service areas arm adequate uo serve the day care facility and are easily accessible. TO mitigate the visual impact of the dumpstar from Seacrest Boulevard, ga=es are proposed. Utilities, with reference to location, availability, and compatibility. The existing utilities are adequaue to serve the day care facility. Screening, buffering, and landscaping with reference 5ype, dimensions and character. The minimum buffers required by code have been provided, including vegetative screening of the dumpsser enclosure. In addition, the apFlicant has exceeded the minimum buffer requirements along that portion of the east property line which separates the play area from S.E. 1st Avenue, Due to the fact that there are single family homes across S.E, 1st Avenue, it is recommended that approval of the conditional use be contingent on requiring the proposed buffers which exceed code. Signs and proposed exterior lighting, with reference to glare, traffic safety, economic effect, and compatibility and harmony with adjacen= and nearby properties. A freestanding slgn identifying the use is proposed along seacrest Boulevard. AS discussed in the attached Planning Department memorandum, staff could not evaluate any potential conflicts with the sign location versus landscaping, traffic visibility and utilities since the sign setback has not been indicated on the plans. With respect to glare from exterior parking lot lighting, fixtures are proposed to be shielded from the adjacent residential propertIes 5o the eas5 and south. light 7. Req~/ired setbacks and other open spaces. The existing 2,090 square foot s~ngle family home is a legal nonconforming structure with respect to the front yard which is 29 feet; 30 foot front yards are required, and the side yards whic~ are 8 feet to the south property line and 6 feet to the north property line; a 30 foot side yard and a 10 foot side yard are required, respectively. A small addition is proposed to the front of the existing structure, increasing the gross floor area by 240 s~uare feet for a total of 2,330 square fee5 for the day care center. The addition is permissible because it does not increase the nonconformity of the existing structure. With respect =o open spaces no open areas are required except for the m~nimum 4,050 square foot (45 square feet per child), outdoor play area required by H.R.S. which has been provided General compatibility with adjacent properties, and other properties in the zoning district. Page 3 of ADDENDLIvI G PM No. 90-350 -4- December 4, 1990 As previously discussed, the surrounding land uses include single family homes in a single and =wo family zoning district and health related office uses, zoned for professional and business offices The proposed day care cen=er, with the buffering and shielded ex=erlor lighting proposed, would be generally compatible with these adjacenm uses. Height of buildings and structures, with reference compatibility and harmony with adjacenu and uearby properties, and the city as a whole. The buildin] height is one story which is compatible with the surrounding buildings. I0. Economic effects on adjacent properties and the Clty as a whole. It is not anticipated that the proposed day care cen=er will have an adverse impact on property values in the vicinity, or the City as a whole. The improved appearance of the parcel, resulting from additional landscaping, sodding and irrigation and ~eneral building maintenance, may result in increased property values for surrounding properties which are in a satisfactory condition. Also. this residential neighborhood may benefit from a new day cars center located in such close proximity to single family homes and potential duplexes. Comprehensive Plan Policies: This requesn, subject =o the attached staff comments, is consistent with all relevant policies contained within the 1989 Comprehensive Plan The fact that day care centers are a conditional use in =he R-2, R-3. CBD, C-I, C-3 and C-4 zoning districts implies that this uype of use would be suitable in some locations (where satisfactory provisions can be made =o ml=lgate any negative · mpac=s ~n order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the commun~my) and unsuitable at other locations. The proposed slte plan, sub]ec= =o staff comments, will safely and conveniently provide for sufficlen= parking, ingress and egress, drop-off area, emergency access, pedestrian and vehicular circulation, extericr lighting, sanitation service, utilities and landscaping. It will also minimize the negative impacts associated with locating such ~ use ad3acent ~o residential uses by installin9 buffer walls, vegetative buffers and shielded parking lot lighting. In addition, the proposed day care center is generally compatible with, and will not have an adverse effect on, adjacent properties and is consistent wit~ comprehensive plan policies. Therefore. the Planning Deparnmen~ recommends that this request for conditional use approval be approved, subject to the attached staff comments. Tambri J. Hey~n ' ~ 5jh Attachments A:lstImpCU xc: Central File Page 4 of ADD~I~D~ ~G BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-485 REVISED December 4, 1990 TO: Chrisuophez Cutro Planning Director THRU: Don Jaeger, Bttildin9 & Zoning Dlrecto~i~z/ CARE (change an existing residential building into a day care center) Upon review Df the above mentioned pro3ecB, the following comments mus% ba addressed 1]] order mo conform with Boyn~on Beach City Codes: Snow on the plans a handicapped accessible walkway leading To the building from the public sidewalk. Specify the width. slope, ~ength 5nd material proposed for the walkway. slow on the landscape plan the size and location of the unobstructed cross visibility triangle for the Seacrest Boulevard egress driveway. Specify on the plans that an unobstructed space between 30' and 72" above grade shall be · alnEa~ned wlthin t~e cross vlsibilzty triangle. soe~ifiy the quality of plant maneriai nc be use~ for Black 2aiabs~h and Flame Vlne. Ail drawmngs and or documents submitted for public record, ~nd prepared by a design professional, shall show legible raised seal and smgna~ure of ~ Florida registered desmgn professional, who is responsible for the drawings ldentify the finish color of the site wall. Show on the szte plan drawing the location of the two [2) ll' ~[ 18 parkznfl spaces specified within the parkmn~ Specify on the site plan drawzng the location of the free standing sign by providing dimensions from two adjacen~ property lines no the leading edge of the szgn. SnDw on the %!rpical elevation drawlng of the site lighting The outline configuraBmon and material shown and identified Dn the project drawing(s submitted wzth the plan s for final sign-off 5re required 5o match in ~very respec~ the colored drawlng[s approved b~ the city Commission during the approval proces~ of the prozec~. The COlOr o~ each exLermor ~inish materla! shown on the final sign-off plans zs required ~c be identified by name. color number and respec~ wlth the color s~ shown on the drawlng(s approved £: Eke CmZy Commission. A manufacturer's color chart showing s-~mitted wltk the ~lans for final szgn-off. Page 1 of ADDENDUM Memo EO Christopher Cutro RE: Flrst Impressions Day Care center, Memo = 90-485 Revised December 4, 1990 Page Two of TWO 11. Show on the site plan drawing the locanlon, width and pavement markings for the 5' 0" wide aisle that is required to be pare of the handicapped parking space. The alsle shall be linked to the handicapped accessible path that leads to the ensrance of the building. 12. Specify on the plans th&t white pavement markings will be used on asphalt paving surface In order nc facilitate the permitting process, the following lnfol-maslon should be included with your docume~lts submitued to the Buildln~ Department for review and permitting: I Health Deparument approval is required. -. All slgnage ml~s~ comply with the requirements of the sign code. 3. Ent=re building shall meet the requ!rememt oi the handicapped accessibilit~ code. 4. Separate permits are required to remcve and fill the swlmmlllg pool M~3hae2 E Haag t/ Page 2 of ADDENDUM H December i, 1990 TO: Christopher Cutro Director of Planning FROM: Vincen~ A. Finizio Administrative Coordinator of Engineering In accordance with the City of Boyn=on Beach, Florida, Code of Ordinances specifically Chapner 19, Section 19-17, Plan Required inclusive, including Chap=er 5, A~ticie X, Boyn=on Beach ParRing Lot Regulations, Section 5-142, Required Improvements inclusive, the applicant for the above referenced project shall submit the following data, technical information and plan revisions. i. Provide a handicap striping detail and advisory signage in accordance with State of Florida DCA Accessibility Requirements, latest edition. Section 5-142(k) Handicap Requirements. 2. Provide a currenE survey which is a requirement of the site plan application process. Chapter t9, Site Plan Approval Process. The Engineering DepartmenE reserves the right to include addditional =ommenEs based upon our review the submitted survey. 3. fhe swales along SE 22nd Avenue shall be constructed in accordance with Engineering Depar=ment standard specifications Drawing gA-80033, Typical Standard Details for Swales ~& Sidewalks. The swales shall be fully sodded and irrigated. Additionally, broken and avulsed sidewalks shall ma reconsgructed and shall ex=end thru ingress/egress approaches and be 6 inches thick thru this area. The sidewalks shall transition thru ingess/egress approaches in a manner which facilitate circulation of handicapped persons. Section 5-142(g), Sidewalk Standards. 4. The reconstruction of sidewalks amd swales along the wes= canger of the facility relative ~o the demolition of the existing ingress/egress approach, including the construction of the mew ingress/egress approach along SE 22nd Avenue shall be in accordance with Palm Beach County standards for rights~of-way construction. Additionally, permits from Palm Beach County for the demolition, reeonstuctdon and consgruction of ingress/egress approaches within County rights-of-way shall be a pre-requisite requiremeng precedent City of Boynton Beach issuing permits for parking facility construction. Provide a parking facility lighting plan, including photometrics, which complies with the r~quirements set forth within Section 5-142(a/ Required Lighting and Section $-142(g) Lighting Standards. Lighting sysuems shall be photo-cell activated. Placemen= of Black Olive trees in proximity uo suop signs shall be modified so as not ~o block vehicular line of sight relative ~o said stop signs. Section 5-142[c) Traffic Control. 5. Provide raised continuous concrete curbing where parking stalls abut land- scaped areas Section 5-142(e) Curves. 6. Provide a detail for the construction of the new ingress/egress approach within public rights-of-ways. Section 5-142(g) Construction and Section 19-17 (Location of points of entry and exit,nogether with location of all curb cues. [ncludinE 19-17(k) Required Engineering and Technical Data necessary to permit findings. 6. Provide a sEor~ water drainage system in accordance with Section 5-142(f), Drainage. Drainage plan shall include drainage calculations and percolation nesus in all ins=ances. Storm water inlet grates shall ge legated in grassed areas in accordance with Section 5-142(g), Drainage Standands inclusive. Page 1 of ADDENDUM I 7. Provide construction cross-section for proposed parking facility describing materials and ma=erial specifications in accordance with Section 5-142(g) Parking Lot Construction Standards g. Provide interruptions along raised concrete curbing ~o facilitate s~orm wa~er gischarges into grassed swale areas. 9. Revise plans to indicate white striping for standard stalls and blue/white ~or handicap stalls. Delete note relative to black striping and provide a detailed section of parking lot construction. Section 5-i42(g). ~ne Engineering Department for the City of Boyaton Beach recommends that the applicant obtain a copy of Chapter 5, Article X, Boynton Beach Parking Lot Raguiations in order ~o obtain the necessary specifications ,standards and criteria for the construcgion of a parking facility which complies with City of Boyn~on Beach, Fiorida codes. ca: J. Scott >tiller. City Manager Page 2 of ADDKNDUM I PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-351 TO: THRU: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Christopher Cutro, A.I.C.P. Planning Director FROM: Tambri J. Heyden Assistant City Planner DATE: December 5, 1990 SUBJECT: First Impressions Day Care Center Conditional Use - File NO. 549 Please be advised of the following Planning Department comments with respect to the above-referenced request for conditional use approval: Dimension the si~n setback to enable staff to evaluate any potential conflicts with the sign location versus landscaping, utilities and traffic visibility. Appendix A - Zoning, Section ll.A.10. 2. Indicate clearly whether the "No Parking, Drop-off Area" note on the plans is a sign, pavement painting or both. Revise the site plan application so that the total building square footage including the addition, the total number of parking spaces required and provided and the total impervious area corresponds with the site plan. Site plan application, pages 9 and 10. Revise the site plan data table to accurately reflect the number of parking spaces shown on the site plan and the minimum number Of parking spaces required by Code for this use. As discussed in Planning Department Memorandum No. 90-350, page 3, item 5, it is recommended that the proposed buffers indicated on the plan which exceed code be required as a condition of approval to buffer the play area from the adjacent single family homes. tjh A:lstImpMe xc: Central Tambri J. H~;/den ~/ File PLA/~NING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-352 TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: RE: CHAIRMAN AMD MEMBERS PLANNING ND ZONING BOARD JORGE L. GONZALEZ ASSISTANT CITY PLANNER DECEMBER 5, 1990 REQUESTS FOR ANNEXATION, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT, AND REEONING SUBMITTED BY KILDAY AND ASSOCIATES FOR FRANK ALIAGA/CYPRESS AMOCO, INC., LESSEE (HYPOLUXO SERVICE STATION] - FILE NO. 558 INTRODUCTION Kieran J. Kilday, agen5 for Frank Aliaga/Cypress Amoco, Inc., Lessee, is requesEing that a 1.26 acre parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and High Ridge Road, approximately 1,600 feet wesE of Interstate 95 (see attached location map) be ~nnexed into the City, the Future Land Use ElemenE designation be amended from "commercial LOW Intensity" in Palm Beach County to "Local Retail Commercial" in the City, the text of Area 5.h of the Land Use Problems and Opportunities section of the city of Boynaon Beach Comprehensive Plan Future Land use Element Suppor% DocumenEs be amended, and that the parcel be rezoned from RS (Residential Single-Family) in Palm Beach County ~o C-3 {community Commercial) in the City. Each reques5 and the land use recommended in the Clty's Plan is summarized in the following table: Existing Land Use: (P.B.C.) Existing Zoning: P.B.C.) Requested Land Use: (City) Requested Zoning: (City) Land Use Recommended in city's Plan: (CL) - commercial LOW Intensity (RS) - Residential Single Family (LRC) - Local Retail Commercial (C-3) - Community Commercial (OC) - Office commercial The sub]act parcel occupies 262.39 feet of frontage on Nypoluxo Road and 159,75 feet of frontage on High Ridge Road. The properEy is presently occupied by a one-story residence with a shed on the northeas= cornar with six trees near it. The remaining portion is cleared. The proposed use of this property, if rezoned, would be for a 1,200 square foot food/gas building (with a 1,200 square foot second floor for storage), a 1,000 square foot retail building, a 2,988 square foot auEo service building with an office, and approximately six gasoline pumps. PROCEDUR~ These applications for annexation, amendment to the Future Land Use Element, text amendment, and rezoning are being processed consls=ent with state statutes and city of Boynton Beach Codes, Ordinances and Resolutions as follows: 1. F.S. 163 3161: Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Part II. Addendum K - Page 1 2. F.S. 166.041: Procedures for Adopnlon of Ordinances and Resolutions. F.S. 171.011: Municipal Annexation and Contraction Law. 4. Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Section 3A5'~: Boundary and Zoning. 5. Boynnon Beach Resolution =76-X: Procedures for Annexation. 6. BoynLon Beach Code of Ordinances. Appendix A. Sectzon 9.C: Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Reaonzngs. 7. Boyn~on Beach Ordinance = 89-38: i989 Comprehensive Plan. These regulations have been listed for informational purposes. Paraphrasing, these regulations require newspaper advertisements, public hearings before the Flanning and Zoning Board and the City commission, revzew by the Department of Communzty Affairs, and the Commisszon ~doption of ordinances to annex, amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element and texT, and rezone. These procedures take approximately 8 To 9 months to complete, C. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING AS previously indicated, the subject parcel Ks located a~ the southwest corner of H!rpoluxo Road and High Ridge Road. The land use and zoning of the surrounding area varzes and is presented for your information in the table which follows: D~rectlon Jurisdiction Zonln~ Land Use North P.B. County Residential Single Family Single Family Homes East P.B. County Residential Single Family South P.B. County Residential Single Family Day Care West Boynnon Bch. Planned unit Office portion Development of ACLF D. CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAIN - ANNEXATION POLICIES The proposed annexation is conszstent with the policies pertaining 5o annexa=lon contained withi~ the Comprehensive Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Palm Beach County has been ~otified of the proposed annexation and they have responded, ieee attachments) Eo ~ITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND TEXT The sub]ecu property lies within the City's Reserve Annexation Area and the Utility Service'Area. The subject property is currently shown on the City's Future Land Use Element (in the Reserve Annexation Area) as "office Commercial." so an amendment 5o the city's Future Land Use Element 5o "Local Retail Commercial" as requested Dy the applicant, would be necessary. Pursuan~ 5o Section 163.3187[1)(c} of Florida ~tatutes, this amendment reques~ is a "small scale" amendment; thus, ~5 is noE subject to the twice a year submittal requirement. In addition, an application for ~ tex~ amendmen5 no Area 5.b of the section entitled Land Use Problems and Opportunities of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents has been submi=ted 5o add the words and figures ~n underlined type and delete the words and figures in the s=rike-through 5lrpe as follows: Addendum K - Page 2 5.b Hich RidGe Road corridor (presently unzncoruoreted)_ Presently this area is occupied by several large-lot single-family subdivisions, and several large vacant parcels. Annexation of the subdivided areas would not be practical, since 1T would not be possibIe to service these lots efficiently, if annexed individually. Annexation of these lots should be by referendum or other legal means for annexing the entire area The unplatted parcels on the west side of High Ridge Road, immediately north of the Miner Road right-of-way should be annexed however, prior to development, in order to eliminate this unincorporated enclave, and should be placed in the LOW Density Residential land use category. The parcel which has been developed for warehouses au the southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and 1-95 should be placed in the Industrial land use casegory, and the parcel immediately to the west, which is occupied by a church, should be placed in the Local Retail Commercial category, in order to be consistent with the Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan. Continuing westward, the parcels which abu~ the south side of Bypoluxo Road, between the church and High Ridge Road. should be placed in the Local Retail Commercial category, consistent with the Palm Beach County Future Land Use Plan. The parcel at the southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and Hl~h Ridge Road, 5o a depth of approximately 300 feet. should be placed in the ~£~ee-~mme~-~an~-~se Lo,al Retail Commercial categ=ry, consistent with the Palm Beach ~Quntv Future La~d Use Plan. All of the parcels along this segmenE of Hypotuxo Road should be limited to a maximum building ~eigh~ of 2 stories (30 feet) in order to prevent conflicts with the low-density residential subdivisions whic// lie in the v~¢inluy. These parcels should be annexed only if an analysis of the annexau~on applications shows that annexation would be cons~ssen= with the city's annexation policies, as se~ forth in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element and the requirements of Florids Statnse. The large, vacan= parcels on the east side of High Ridge Road should be annexed only i~ an analysis of the annexasio~ applications shows that annexes!on wo~ld be consistent with the City's annexation policies, as see forth in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element. and the requirements of Florida statue. If annexed, these properties should be placed in the LOW Denslty Residential land use category and should be developed as Eo be compatible with the surrounding low-density single-family housing. The adjacent right-of-way for Hlrpoluxo Road should be annexed only if there is reasonable expectation that mos~ of the abutting parcels between Hi~h Ridge Road and Interstate 95 will be annexed The right-of-way for Interstate 95 and the Seaboard Airline Railway ~butting any annexed parcels should be annexed, however, ~n any case. It should be noted that the recommendations in area 5.b of the Land Use Problems and Opportunities Section to place certain parcels in the Office Commercial land use casegory include all parcels ~o a depth of three hundred (300) feet from Hypoluxo Road. S~nce the sub]ec= parcel only has a maximum depth of approximately one hundred and ninety (190) feet, the recommendation also encompasses the parcel south of the subjec= parcel. The usx5 amendment submitted by the applicans, as it reads now seeks to change the land use designation of the parcel south of the sub3ec~ parcel ~n addition Co the subject parcel. The land use designation of the parcel south of the sub3ect property cannot be changed unless the owner submits ~n application. If the ~ext amendment is approved for the subject parcel, then the new language in the text of the Land Use Problems and Opporsunities Sec51on should be modified for the change in Addendum E - Page 3 land use 5o include 3us~ the subject parcel, no~ the parcel abutting to the south, section I. of this memorandum entitled "Pro~ec~ Approval," recommends specific language that should be added and/or deleted from the request to the text amendment in order To correct this problem if the uex~ amendmenE requ~s~ ls approved. F. PROPOSED REZONING AS previously ~ndicated, a gasoline service station/ convenience s~ore ~s being proposed on ~he subject properEy. Appendix A, Zoning, Section ll.L.1 of the City of Boyn~on Beach Code of ordinances states: "There shall be a minimum distance of one thousand (1,000~ feet between the nearest properEy line of the lot or plot o~ land upon which the proposed service station is ~o be constructed, and the nearesu properEy line of a lot or ~Lot of land upon which any other ~asoline service station, Church, public playground, hospital, public school or other similar public or semi public place wheDe large numbers of people congregate are located. Such distance shall be dzrect airline measurement." The sub]ecE propersy zs approximately seven hundred and seventy (770) ~inear feet southwest of an existing Shell gasoline service station located on the north side of Hypoluxo Road, approximately seven hundred (700) feet wes~ of Inters~a~e 95. S%nce the subject property is within one thousand (1,000) feet of an existing gasoline/service station, the developmen~ of a gasoline service sEa,ion is no~ permitted on the subject proper~y according uo Appendix A, Zoning, section 11.7.] of the City of Bo~rnuon Beach Code of Ordinances. It should be noted, however, that a discussion of the distance requirements for gasoline servzce stations ~s scheduled for the Decenlber 11, 1990 meeting the City of Bo!rnton Beach Planning 5nd Zoning Board Any changes ~o this par5 of the Code of Ordinances can have an impact on the future developmenE of ~ gasoline service sEaElon on the subjec~ proper~y. G ISSUES/DISCUSSION Section 9.c.7 of Appendix A. Zonlng, of the Code of Ordinances, requzres the evaluation of plan amendment/ rezonzng requesEs agaznst crluerla rela~ed ~o the impacts which would result from the approval of such requesss. These criteria and an evaluation of the impacts which would result from the proposed developmenu are as follows: a. Whether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies. The planning depar~men~ shall also recommend limitations or requirements which would have to be imposed on subsequenE developmen~ of the properEy, in order to comply with policies contained zn the comprehensive plan. The proposed land use amendment/rezoning would no~ be consistenE with Area 5.b of the Land Use Problems and opportunities secslon of the Future Land use ElemenE Support ~ocumenEs because the applicant is seeking a more intensive land use casegory (Local Retail Commercial), than the land use designation recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for this parcel ~office Commercial). However, the applicant has submitted an application for ~ Text AmendmenE to Area 5.b ~o amend the exlsu~ng language in order uo accommodate the proposed developmenE, as outlined in Section E. of this Addendum E - Page 4 The proposed land use amendment rezonlng would not be consistent with Policy 1.4.13 of the comprehensive Plan which sasses: .,Subsequent to Plan adoption, establish procedures to provide that the City shall oppose requests for changes in land use which are in conflict with the City of BoynEon Beach or Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan." AS previously indicated the proposed land use amendment is not conslsuenu with the City's Plan~ In addition, the Palm Beach County Planninq Dzvision has responded that the proposed land use amendment/rezonlng would not be consistent with the County's comprehensive Pla~. The proposed use of the sits gasoline service station/convenience store) Ks only allowed in Palm Beach County as a '~special Exception" if the property ~ aE the intersectlon of two major arterial roadways. The County Thoroughfare Plan does not consider High ~idge Road uo he a major arterial roadway. In fact, prior to submitting ~n annexation applicataon to ~he City of Boynhon Beach, agents for the subjec~ property petitioned Palm Beach County for a Special Exception but were denied. It should he no,ed that in the justificatlon sEaEemen5 for the land use ame~dment/rezoning the agent for the applicant stat~s: "The application contained herein is also consistent with the current County Comprehensive Plan designation of C/L (commercial Low)." This s~ahemenn is not accuraue since ~ gasoline serv~oe station/convenlence store ls no~ allowed zn this parcel under the~coun%~'s Comprehensive Plan~because High Ridge Road is not a msjor arterial. As noted in ~he paragraph above, the Palm Beaeh COunt~ Planning Division has stated that the proposed application is not consisaen~ with the County Plan. It should also be no,ed that in the ]ustzficatien suahement for the Eexu amendment the agent for the applicant shahes: "This uex5 amendment request ls consistent with the curren~ Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan designation which shows the property as CommeEclal." This statement is only partially accurahe because even though the County Plan designates this parcel for commercial use the presen~ County land use designation of Commercial Low IntenslEy does no~ allow s ~asoline service station/convenience shore. The applicant also shaEes ~hat "...this parcel is located at the intersection of Ew~ m~3o~ arterials which contain s~Gnificant traffic volBmes." This sLatement is also not accurate because High Ridge Road is a mou~y collector, not a ma3or arherlal. High Ridge Road does ~ot possess "significant Eraffic volumes~, when compared with major arterials like Hypoluxo Road. In addition ~o the above, there will be a further discussion concernln~ consistency with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies zn subsequent sections of this memorandum· In section I. of th~s memorandum, entitled "Pro3ect Approval," the Planning Department will recommend limitations and requirements which should be lmposed on subsequenE development of the proper~y~ if t~is reques~ ~s approved, in order Eo comply with policies l~ the Comprahensive Plan. Whether the proposed rezoning would be conarary ~o the esuablished land use ~attern, or would create an isolated ~istrict unrelated to· adjacent and nearby districts, or woul~d constitute a grant of special privilege to an i~dividual properEy owner as contraste~ With proteotion of the public welfare. As indicated in Area 5.b of the Land Use Problems and Opportunities Section of the Comprehensive Plan Support Documents, "The parcel a5 the southwest corner of HhrPoluxo Road and High Ridge Road, to a depth of approximately 300 feet, should be placed in the Office Commercial Land Use category." The established and proNected land use pattern for Addendum K - Page 5 the parcels immediately south of Hypoluxo Road and immediately wes~ of High Ridge Road is low intensity commercial, specifically office commercial. The reason being that office commercial serves as a transitional area from the more intensive commercial uses near Interstate 95 and the low density residential uses west and south of the sub~ec~ parcel. c. Whether changed or changing conditions make the the proposed rezoning desirable. There has been no significant change in conditions in the vicinity of this proper~y since the adoption of Ehe Comprehensive Plan which would make the proposed rezonlng desirable. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities. The Cmty's Utility Department has determined that there may not be sufficient potable wauer capacity to accommodate all new developmen~ projects in the city until the existing wa~er treatment plant is expanded sometime in the middle of 1991. Thus, it may be necessary to phase the mssuance of building permmts of all new development projects with the availability of potable wauer. Due EO the City's currenE potable water shortage, it is recommended that if the subject property is rezoned to C-3, that the subsequent development of the property be limited Eo a specific use that does non generate more potable wauer demand than a gasoline service station/convenience store. such a limitation ms necessary because there are other uses permitted in the C-3 zoning district (ressauranus) that generate smgnificantly more potable water demand than a gasoline servmce station. Concerning compatibility with roadways, the applicant s%~bmitted a traffic impacE analysis to the City, which was subsequently transmitted ~o the Palm Beack County Traffic Division uo review for compliance with the Palm Beach COUnty Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. The proposed pro3ecE ms not a 'prevmous approval;" thus it is subject ~o the County's Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. The Palm Beach County Traffic Division has responded: "The traffic study for the projecE contains insufficient or inaccurate information uo determine compliance with the Code," (see attachments). Consequently, a modified traffic anatyszs needs to be submitted which includes or revises the items listed by the Palm Beach County Traffic Division. e Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the curren5 and Euture use of adjacenE and nearby properties, or would affect the proper5y values of adgacent and nearby properties. It is arguable that proposed rezoning would noE be compatible with the current and future land use of adjacen= and nearby properties. The future land use of adjacent and nearby properties is as follows: Commercial LOW Intensity in the connty ~o the north: Commercial Low Intensity in the County to the east; LOW Density Residential in the county ~o the south: and Low Densmty Residential in the City =o the west. None of the existing or future land use of adjacent properties allows the development of a gasoline service station~convenience It should be pointed out however, that Area 5.b of the City,s Land Use Problems mhd Opportunities Section recommends the Local Retail commercial land use category for the parcels immediately to the east of High Ridge Road. Contrary Eo the existing land use designation in Palm Beach County, the land use designation recommended for the parcels eas= of High Ridge Addendum K - Pag~ 6 Road allow the development of a gasoline service station' convenience store. Whether the property is physically and economically developable under the existing zoning. Under the existing Residential Single-Family Zoning in Palm Beach County, the property ~ould be developed for a maximum of six 6) single-family dwelling units. But due to the fact that the subject property fronts HSrpoluxo Road and the close proximity of the Interstate 95 interchange, s~mgle- family development of the subject property is not appropriate or likely. Consequently, it can be argued that the proper~y is not economically developable under the existing zoning. If annexed and developed consistent with the recommendations in Area 5.b of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Support Documents [office Commercial), the property could be developed for a variety of office uses including, but not limited ~o: financial institutions, medical and dental offices and clinics, pharmacies, medical and surgical supplies, professional and business offices, copying services, day care cen~ers, funeral homes, etc. Thus, it can be argued that if the recommendations in the City's Comprehensive Plan are followed, the property is economically developable. g. Whether the proposed rezoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the city as a whole The City of Boynton Beach comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents, Appendix B estimates that under the existing andpro3ected future land use designations, the city of Boynton Beach will have a total supply of 721.91 acres of land for retail and other commercial uses (excluding office and industrial) at build out, and a total demand of 580.01 acres of land for retail and other commercial uses (excluding office and industrial) at build out This equals an excess of 141.90 acres of land for retail and other commercial uses at build out. Thus, it can be argued that the proposed land use amendmemt~rezonlng uo desigmate additional land for retail and other commercial uses ~s no5 related to the needs of the City as ~ whole. In ~erms of the proposed rezoning being related to the needs of the uelghborhood, the applicant h~s not submitted any evidence which would affirm this. h. Whether there are adequate sztes elsewhere in the city for the proposed use, in districts where such use is already allowed. As discussed in previous sections of this memorandum, the Future Land Use Element Support Documents of the Comprehensive Plan estimates that the city of BoSrnEon Beach will have an excess of 141.90 acres of land for retell and other commercial uses (excluding office and industrial) at build out under the existing designations and pro~ections in the Futare Lead Use Element. Thus, it can be argued that there are adequate sites for retail commercial developmenu elsewhere in the city for the proposed use, in districts where such use is already allowed. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning Department recommends that the requests for the Future Land Use Map ~endment, Future Land Use Element Support Documents Text Amendment, and Rezoning submitted by Kieran J. Kilday for Frank Aliaga/Cypress Amoco, Inc., Lessee, be denied. This recommendation is based on the followIng summary of findings contained within this staff reporu: Addendum K - Page 7 The proposed land use amendment/text amendment/rezoning would not be consistent with the recommendations for area 5.~ of the Land Use Problems and Opportunities Section of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Elemen5 Support Documents; The proposed resorting would not be consistent with Appendix A, Zoning, Section 11.L.1 of the City of Bo!rnton Beach Code of Ordinances, which requires a minimum distance of 1,000 feet between gasoline service stations; The proposed land use amendment/text amendment/rezoning would not be consistent with Policy 1.4.13 of the City's Comprehensive Plan because the proposed projecE is hOE consistent with the Palm Beach county Comprehensive Plan end the city's Comprehensive Plan. A gasoline service station/convenience suore would not be allowed on the subject property under the county's land use designation or the City's recommended land use designation. The traffic impact analysis is incomplete and lnaccuraEe, according to the Palm Beach County Traffic Division. A new traffic impac~ analysis needs to be submitted; It is arguable that proposed rezon~ng would hoe be compatible with the current and future land use of adjacent and nearby properties. None of the existing or future la~d use of adjacent properties allows the developmen~ of a gasoline service station/convenience store. It should he pointed out however, that Area 5.b of the City's Land Use Problems and Opportunities Section recommends the Local Re~eil Commercial caEegory for the parcels immediately to the east of High Ridge Road. There has been no significant change ~n the conditions in the vicinity of this property since the adoption of the Comp=ehensive Plan that would make the proposed rezoning desirable; The properEy is physically and economically developable for a variety of office uses according to the land use designation recommended in the City's Comprehensive Plan: AS ontlined in Appendix B of the Future Land Use Element Suppor= Documents, it is arguable that the proposed rezonlng is ~ot of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the city as a whole because lu is estimated that the City will have an excess of 141.90 acres of land for retail and other commercial uses (excluding office and industrial) aE build out under the currenu land use designations snd projections in the Future Land Use Element. The applicant has not presented evidence that demonstrates the proposed rezoning is related uo the needs of the neighborhood. AS outlined in Appendix B of the Future Land Use Element of the Support Documents, the City will have an excess of 141.90 acres of land for retail and other commercial uses (excluding office and industrial) at build out; thus, it can be argued that adequate sites exist elsewhere in the city for the development of the proposed use. I. ~ROJECT APPROVAL If it lS the desire of the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval or the city commission to approve these requests, it ~s recommended that approval be contlngenE upon the following: The Text Amendment to Area 5.b of the Land Use ~roblems and Opportunities Section of the Future Land Use Support Documents should be modified and approved as follows: Addendum K - Page 8 5.b HiGh Ridge Road Corridor IDresentlv unincorporated) Presently this area is occupied by several large-lot single-family subdivisions, and several large vacan5 parcels. Annexation of the subdivided areas would not be practical, since it would not be possible to ser¥ice these lots efficiently, if annexed individually. Annexation of these lots should be by referendum or other legal means for annexzng the entire area, The unplatted parcels on the west side of High Ridge Road, immediately north of the Miner Road right-of-way should be annexed, however, prior to development, in order to eliminate this unincorporated enclave, and should be placed in the Low De~slsy Residential land use ca~gory. The parcel which has been developed for ~arehouses at the southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and 1-95 should be placed in the I~dustrial land use categoryr and the parcel immediately 5o the west, Which is occupier by a church, shQ~ld ~e placed in the Local Retail Commercial category, in order to be conslste-~t with the ~alm Beach County Comprehensive Pla~. c0ntinu~ng westward, the parcels which abut the south side of H!rp~l~xo Road, b~twe~n the church and High Ridge Road, s~o~ld be placed in the Local Retail Commercial category, ~onsistent with the Palm Beach county Future La~d Use P,lan. The parcel at the southwest corner of ~rpoluxo Road a~d High Ridge Road, to a depth of approximately ~8~ 190 feet, should be placed in ~he 8~ee-~mme~a~-A~d?~ee~o~al Re~ail Commercial cat~gory, 6onsistent wTth the Palm ~each County Future band Use ~lanl All of the parcels along this segment of Hyp~luxo Road sho~!d be limited to, a maximum building height of 2 stories (30 feet) in order to prevent con$1icts with the low-densityresidential subdivisions which lie in ~he ~icinity. These parcels should be annexed onty i~ a~ analysis of the~ annexation applications show~ that annexatio~ would be consistent witR the City's a~n~ation pQlicies, as set forth in the Intergovernmental Coordination Element, and the requlremenss of Florida StaEue. The large, vacant parcels on the east side of High Ridge Road should be annexed only if an analysis of the annexation applications shows that annexation would be consistent with the City's annexation policies, as set forth ~n the Intergovernmentad Coordination Element, and the requirements of Florida Statue. If annexed, these properties should be placed in the LOW Density Residentia~l la~d use category and should be developed as to be ~ompatibte with the surrounding ~ow-density slngle-famil~ housing. The adjacen~ right-of-way for Hypoiuxo Road shoul~ be annexed only if there is reasonabla expectation that mos= of the' abutting parcels besween High Ridge Road and Insersuase 95 will be annexed. The ~ight-0f-way for Interstate 95 and the Seaboard Airline RaiIway abutting any annexed parcels should be annexed, howsver, ~n any case. It is ~ecommended that a six (6) foot high CBS buffer wall be located alon9 the south boundary of the subjec5 property in order Eo minimize impacss on the existing day care cenLer; Due to the City's current shortage in potable wa=er supply, it is recommended that the subsequent developmen5 of the proper~y be limited to a specific use that does no= generase more potable waser demand than a gasoline service s~aslo~;convenience store. In addition, it may be necessary to phase the issuance of building permits for this pro]ecs with the expansion of the existing water treatmen~ plant; Addendum K - Page 9 A new traffic lmpact ssatement needs to be submitted which complies with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performanc~ standards Ordinance. In addition, it is recommended that a rlght turn lane ~north approach) on High Ridge Road be installed at the project's driveway to facilitate traffic flow. Any additional road improvements recommended by the revised traffic impact statement and/or Balm Beach County should also be installed. Pursuant to the recommendation in Area 5.b of the Land Use Problems and Opportunities Section~of the Fusure Land Use support DOcuments, development of the subjec~ property should be limited to a ~maximum building height of two (2) stories (30 feet), in ~rder 5o preven5 conflicts with the low density residential subdivisions which lie in th~ vicinity. Pursuan5 to Appendix A, Section 9.13 of the Code of Ordinances, a site plan must he submitted within eighteen (18) months of the final rezoning approval by the City CQmmission, At the end of the eighteen (18) month~, the city Commission has the option of extending the z~in~ approwal or applying a more restrictive zon~n~ district and/or ~and use designation. NOTS: Pursuant to Section I63.3174(4)(d), Florida Statutes, the Planning and Zoning Board, as the Local Planning Agency, is required Eo make a recommendation ~o the city Commission with respect to the consistency of these proposed amendments with the Comprehensive Plan. a:hyposerv.doc Addendum E - Page 10 TO: Chazrman and Members Plannmng and Zoning EDard THRU: Christopher cutro, A.I.C.P. Planning Director FROM: Tambri J. Heyden Asslsran~ City Planner DATE: December 5, 1990 SUBJECT: Ray Flow Properties - File No. 553 Regues5 for Annexation, Land Use Element Amendment and Ray F. Flow, property owner, is proposing mo annex into Boynton Beach a 1.41 acre parcel and a 1.25 acre parcel located at the souKhwesm corner of Old Boynton Road and Knuth Road [see aEaached locatzon map). The current land use and zoning of the 1.41 acre parcel is R-8 residential with a maximum of 8 dwelling unmas per acrea, and RM/SE, Multiple Family Residential District with a special exception for a day care censer, zespectively. This parcel is occupied by Little Dude Ranch. a day care ~enter. The currenm land use and zoning of the vacan~ 1.25 acre parcel is R-8, residential with a ~ax~mum o~ 8 dwelling units per acre, and RM, Multiple Family Residential District, respectively. Included w~th the annexamlon request is a request to amend the Future Land Use Element of the comprehensive Plan to show the 5wo parcels as "High Denszny Residential", allowing a maximum of 10.8 dwelling units per acre, and to rezone both parceTs from the County s zonmng classification to the City's R-3, Multiple Family Dwelling Although the documents submitted by the applican~ indicaae that the proposed use of the unde¥~loped, 1.25 acze site is for t0 multi-famil.y dwelling units, if the proper~y ls rezoned to R-3. the sl~e could be developed for any use permitted zn the R-3 zoning district, unless otherwIse restricted by the City ' commission as a conditiDn of zoning approval. PROCEDURE These applica~zons for annexation, amendmen~ go the Future Land Use Elemenm of the Comprehensive Plan and rezoning are being processed conslsren~ with State Statutes and Bo!rnton Beach codes, ordinances and resolutions as follows: 1. F.$. 163.3161: Local Government comprehensive Planning Development Regulation Act. 2. F.S. 166.041: Procedures for Adoption of Ordinances and Resolutions. 3. F.S. 171.011: Municipal Annexation and conmrac~lon Act. Soynton Beach code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Sectmon 4. 3A5(e): Boundary and Zoning and Section 9.C: Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Rezon~ngs. 5. Boynaon Beach Resolution =76-X: Procednres for Annexation. 6. Boynmon Beach Ordinance =89-38: Comprehensive Plan. These reguianlons have been listed for informational purposes. Paraphrasing, these regulations require newspaper ~dvertisements, public hearings with the Planning and Zoning Board and the City commlssion, review by the Florida DeparEmenu of Community Affairs (DCA), and commission adoption of ordinances ~o annex~ amend the Future Land Use Element and rezone. Addendum L - Page 1 PM NO 90-353 -Z- December ! 1990 CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING AS [reviously discussed, the 1.41 acre parcel IS occupied D? a day care center and the 1.25 acre parcel is vacann. The land use and zoning in the surrounding area varies and ms presented for your informanlon in the table which follows: Farther Palm Beach County RS - s~ngle family south Palm Beach County RM/SE - Slngle family west (8 units/ac) FUTURE LAND USE AND REZON~NG The subiec~ parcels lie within the city's reserve annexaumon area. Pursuant to Section 9.C.2 2] of Appendix A - Zonlng, staff analysis oi the proposed zoning is hOE required where rezonmng 1s requested in con]unc=lon with an application ~or annexation ~nd the rezonlng would be consistent with the Palm Beach ~ounty Comprehensive Plan. or where the proposed zonln~ would be consistent with the zoning or land use recommendations contained in the City Df Boynton Beach Comprehensmve Plan. With respect 5o the above, the proposed t~nd use and zoning categories requested would be consistent, provided future buildings are limited 5o two stories~ with the language for Area 7.h. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element supporI Documents, which reads as follows: 7.h. Residential Area between Old Bovnton Road and the L.W.D.D. L-24 Canal west of Knuth Road This area contains the Oakwood Lakes pro]ec5, as well as a portion of the Country Club Trails PUD. Densities for approved projects uange from 5 5o 10 dwelling unfts per 5cre. This area has good access and ms largely surrDunded by commercial or high density residential developmenms. Therefore, this is an appropriate location for High Denslty Residential land use. The City should oppose any establishment of commercial uses within this area. however, since commercial uses would in~rude residential areas, access is no~ suffic~enu for commercial developmenL, and adequane commercially- designated propar~y already exlsus in the VlClnlEy. Building heights should be limited 5o 2 snorles- in order ~o be compatible with the surrounding 1- and 2-story residences. The undeveloped parcels abutting Old Boynton Road and Knuth Boad should be annexed if and when they become adj~cen5 to the city. The oakwood Lakes pronec~ and the parcel mc the wes~ should ultimately be annexed by referendum or other legal means Any annexation in this area should include annexation of the adjacenn r~ghts-of-way for Old Boynton Road and Lawrence Road. Addendu, L - Page 2 On March 9, 19~9. Ehe prevlous owner of the 1.25 and the 1.41 acre parcels, Ernest and Elizabeth Gilmer, entered into wa5er service agreemenEs with the City for the ~w¢ parcels. The wa~er servmce agreemenEs were approved sub]ecE To several conditions. one of which was that the Dwner could proceed with counLy petitions for development of the day care conner ~now exLstmng3, provided that annexa~zon~ land use amendmenE/rezonzng applications were submitted to De processed at the nex~ available deadline, october i, 1989. Incidentally~ applications were submitted but were nom completed until ~he October t, 199£ deadline. One conditmon of the approved water servzce agreemenEs was that if the day care colder was existing or proposed Eo be consErncEed Kt the Em~e the 1.41 acre parcel was annexed into the ~iLy, cond&tional use approval would also be required ~onsisnenu with the Zoning Ccde- Appendix A. Sectmon ll.l.N. Status of Ex~stmn~ Uses Requlrzng conditional Use Approval. Therefore, prlor to adopLlon of the Drdinan~e Lc annex this parcel, anEmclpated for Ma¥~ 1991, the applicant mush st~mzt ~ conditional use application. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNEXATION POLICIES The proposed annexatlon is consistent with the policmes pertaining 5o annexation conEalned within the Comprehensive Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element. Palm Beach CounEy has been notified of the proposed annexation and themr commenLs are aLLached as Exhibit "A'~. With ~espec~ no the County Sheriff s DeparLmenn commenu regarding augmen~aElon of the already presenL mixed service area in the VlClnlLy of the su£]ec5 parcels, the subject parcels are within the City's reserve 5nnexaulon area as already mentioned. This fact was relmerated in the commenEs from the County's planning divmsion. RECOMMENDATION The Planning DeparLmenm recommends thaL the applications submitted by Ray F. Flow be approved, subjec5 to the following nwo conditions: i. Submittal Df a conditmonal use applmcaLlon prior 5o adopLlon of the ordinance Lo annex the 1.41 acre parce~ 2. Building heights be limited 5o Lwo-suormes. Phis recommendation ls based ~n pare Dn the following: 1. Tha~ the parcels are co~Elguous 5o the 2orporREe limits: 2. That the parcels lie within the 21ty's reserve annexatmon area: 3. That wafer service agreemenus for both parcels were approved sub~ec5 5o annexation, land use amendment/rezonlng applicaElons being submitted, due Eo the fact that both parcels are within the City's utility service area That the lnEenslLy of land use and zoning desired ms conslsmen~ with the language for Area 7.h. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element SUp~DFE Documents; and Addendum L - Page 3 PM NO. 9C-353 -4- December ~ !990 5. That uhe requesn ms consistent with the iomprehenslve Plan annexation policies. T~bri tjh Encs A:F1owLUEA Addendum L - Page 4 planning D~rector. City of Boymon Beach 100 E. Boymon Bcoch Blvd. D gFT I~E: Anaexalton of the propos~'d R~y Flow day care center. accordmce whh Chapter 171, Honda Sratut~ and Palm-Beach County's lmerlm 2. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOL'RCES MANAG EM ENT: Bob Kraus. Envlromncntal Analyst 3, FIRE-RESCUE: Kathy Owens, Special Projects Coordinator Comments will be forwarded. Addendum L - Page 5 a~ve ~llty d~s not ~le in Fi~-R~ Cou~ MSTU and the ~bm~ Taxi~ DgtHct. In Mdifl~n, cemin r~vetue (i.e., uttHty se~ ~ fmOise feeS, sales mx aa~ s=m sh~red revenues may ~ marglmlly ~u~d Bat 8. t'~S ~D ~CREATION D~ARTM~T: T~t Gmno~=, Pfiaci~l Planner Ih~k you for t~ o~o~ 1o renew Oad r~pond to ~h~ a~tiom. Pi~ be advised ~at the commenb ~ent staff anM~ and not lbo pOsition of ~e Board o f C~nty Commissioncm. ~l~e tnelude ~c comnen~ wi;h yohr~ matefi~ for ail meetiz~ and h~fings where thts ~nnexaflon is discussed. Sincerely, Dennis R. Foltz~ AICP Planning Director cc:. Bsard of COUnty Commissioners Grace Johnson. Boca Ramn Growlh Managemem Bob B~mks, County Atlome~e$ Office Bob ~us ERM Addendum I - Paqe 6