Loading...
Minutes 06-12-90MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, JUNE 12. 1990 AT 6:00 P. M. PRESENT Maurice Rosenstock, Chairman Gary Lehnertz, Vice Chairman Nathan Collins Denys "Sam" DeLong Cynthia Greenhouse Murray Howard Daniel E. Richter Jose' Aguila, Alternate Harold Blanchette, Alternate Tim Cannon, Interim Planning Director Jim Golden, Senior Planner Tambri ~eyden, Assistant City Planner Scott Eik~ City Attorney Chairman Rosenstock called the meeting to order at 6:00 P. M. and recognized the presence in the audience of Vice Mayor Lee Wische; J. Scott Miller, City Manager; Marina Haberman, Code Enforcement Board; Michael Rumpf, Assistant Planner; and Uincent Finizio, Administrative Coordinator of Engineering. AGENDA APPROVAL Under "OTHER", Chairman Rosenstock requested that "A. Set workshop date for review of proposed Chapter 19'~ be first on the agenda. He wished to add an item that came to his attention in the last 48 hours under item C. Mr. Richter added "Current Criticism of P&Z Board", which was the same subject Chairman Rosenstock was referring to. There being no objections to the corrections and additions to the agenda, the aqenda was approved with the changes. OTHER A. Set workshop date for review of proposed Chapter 19 City Manager Miller had talked to Mr. Cannon and Chairman Rosenstock relative to a workshop meeting of the P&Z Board, as he thought it would take several hours to review Chapter 19. It was decided the meeting would be held Wednesday, June 27, 1990 at 7:00 P. M. in Commission Chambers. City Manager Miller informed Mr. Collins a copy of Chapter 19 would be furnished to the Members one week prior to the meeting. - 1 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Agreements between City and Developers to Guarantee Completion of Projects as Approved by City Requested by Chairman Maurice Rosenstock Chairman Rosensock asked what the status of this was. City Manager Miller replied that City Attorney Cheroff needs to develop a. standard type of agreement this information would be added to. Because projects are forthcoming and being apl~rove<~, Chairman Rosenstock felt time was of the essence. Mr. Richter thought the City Commission had addressed this, and he thought it would be pun in the Community Design Plan. Chairman Rosenstock objected to that because he did not know ~nen the Community Design Plan would be promulgated, ge referred to.Water's Edge voluntarily agreeing to sign an agreement than the project will be completed as specified. Chairman Rosenstock thought the City needed something in writing to be sure developers perform as they say they will. City Manager Miller responded it is on record and tape. If a contractor/developer makes assurances to the P&Z Board than is what will be developed, he thought the Board could hold "his or her feet to the fire°" At the last Commisszon meeting, Mrs. Greenhouse said she specifically asked Attorney Cherof whether or not amy representations the connractors/deve%opers may have made orally could have constituted a contra~t the City could rely upon. ~ttorney Cherof had answered, "No," and said they had to get it in writing. Further comments wer~ made about getting agreements for pending projects. C~airman Rosenstock i~formed Mr. Richter the contractors/developers do nat have performance bon~. It w~s decided Attorney Elk would relay this discussion ~o Attorney Cherof. Criticism of P&Z Board add Daniel Richter Requested by Chairman Rosenstock It had coate to Chairman Rosenstock's attentio~ that Mayor Gen~ Moore is in the process of writing or had written a memo requesting that the City Commission consider doing away with the P&Z Board, and he wished to hear comments from all of the Members. Chalrman Rosenstock had nothin~ to say, as his statement was made in the newspaper. Mrs. DeL0n~ did not care to make any comment with reference to the newspaper article because she had not seen any evidence o£ t~e zemo. Chairman Rosenstock asked Vice Mayor Wische if he h~dlreceived a memorandum. To date, Vice Mayor Wische had not. Since there was no documentation that made this official, Mr. Richter did not care to comment. As some criticism was made to the newspaper, he stated he would make a presentation. - 2 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Chairman Rosenstock was concerned because there will not be a P&Z meeting prior to the next meeting of the City Commission, and it will be illegal for the Members to discuss this outside of the meeting. Be wondered whether they should call a special meeting of the Board. If this matter does come up, Mr. Richter advised there will be a hearing, discussion, and probably a referendum because it is in the City Charter that the P&Z Board is the Land Plannning Agency. If the C~ty Commission decides next Tuesday to become the Land Planning Agency, Chairman Rosenstock stated the Board will no longer exist. Vice Chairman Lehnertz understood this topic will be on the agenda for the Commission meeting on June 19, 1990. He felt the Board had done very important and useful work. A lot had been done by the Board in trying to distill issues for the City Commission. If the Mayor feels this Board should not exist, Mr. Lehnertz hoped the rest of the City Commission would look at what the Board has been doing and not agree with the Mayor. Chairman Rosenstock stated this is one of the few Boards where the only way a Member can be removed is if there is a cause. Mrs. Greenhouse asked if the Board would have to be "wiped out" by a referendum or could the City Commission disband them. Attorney Elk preferred to look at the Charter before rendering an opinion. Mrs. Greenhouse inquired whether Debra Wallace, Sun Sentinel, was quoting the Mayor. She read, "Moore said on Monday he is writing a memo to the City Commissioners, suggesting they streamline the operation of government by eliminating the bureaucratic red tape and the Planning Board." Mrs. Greenhouse asked whether Mayor Moore said that. Ms. Wallace was sitting in the audience and answered affirmatively. After making other remarks, Mrs. Greenhouse commented she was not going to take it seriously. She further remarked about the amount of work the P&Z Board Members do and felt the resn of the Commission and the citizens of the City appreciate what the Board does. Mr. Howard agreed the Board has worked hard. The Board has been in existence for years, and this was the first time this ever came up. It looked like a game of politics to Mr. Howard, and he thought it was a very negative thing. Mr. Howard hoped it would not happen. If it comes Mr. Collins the Board° up for a vote on the Commission's agenda, thought the overall Commission would maintain - 3 - MINUTES - PLkNNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Mr. Richter told of how the Board has listened to the problems of the citizens and offered relief by writing i~to the Comprehensive Plan and suggesting new Ordinances to be written by the City Commission. He referred to the P&Z Board solving the problem Colonial Club Apartments and the residential occupants of 86 other structures had (because they were consIdered as non-conforming density uses) by writing the following into the Comprehensive Plan: "Ail attached single family, condomznzum, and cooperative dwelings which exist at the time of the adoption of this Comprehensive Plan shall be construed to be in conformance with the densities shown on the Future Land Use plan, re- gardless of the existing density, with respect to the continuance, repair, and reconstruction of same, unless the entire site occupied by such dwellings is cleared and re- developed, When the residents of Coastal Towers came to the Board with a similar problem of height non-conforming use, the Board asked the City Commission to create an Ordinance (No. 89-51). Mr. Richter said because of non-conformity, Village Royale on the Green needs assistance. If their buildings are destroyed by fire or an act of God beyond 70% of their appraised value, they could not be reconstructed because they now do non conform to the parking space requirements of City Code, even though they were constructed prior to this Code. Motion Mr. Richter moved that before codifying "General Rules for all Land Use Categories" in the new Comprehensive Plan, a paragraph be added to the City's Zoning Regulations that will include non-conforming use status because of parking lot restrictions, and this paragraph would read that all single family, condominium and cooperative dwellings which exist at the time of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, and prior to codifying, be permitted to continue regardless of the parking lot requirements with respect to the continuance, repair and reconstruction of same. Mr. Howard seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. MINUTES OF MAY 8, 1990 Vice Chairman Lehnertz drew attention to page 23 of the minutes and said he did not make the motion regarding the - 4 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 additional floor space for Cross Creek Centre. He cast the dissenting vote. Mr. Richter made the motion. Mr. Collins moved to accept the minutes as corrected, seconded by Vice Chairman Lehnertz. Motion carried 7-0. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Overview of Sunshine Law and Voting Conflicts (requested by City Attorney) Attorney Elk apprised the Members the Sunshine Law was estab- lished pursuant to Chapter 286 of the Florida Statutes. He stated the Sunshine Law is applicable to any meeting of two or more persons of any Board or Commission° It applies also where a non-Board Member is acting as the liaison between any other two Board Members even if the two Board Members are not communicating directly but doing so through the liasion, who does no~ have to be a Board Member. It does not apply to Members of differen~ Boards unless there is a delegation of authority 5o the Board Member with respect to any act to be taken. It applies to any official act to be considered or taken before the Board and Commission. Attorney Elk continued by saying the Sunshine Law equally applies to lawsuits, settteme~ts~ any negotiations, and discipline in personnel. Any actions taken by the Board must be taken in a public meeting. The public meeting requires reasonable notice which is defined as enabling the press and other interested parties to attend. The notice has to contain the time and place and agenda, if available, Ks to be prominently displayed. With respect to rules, Attorney Elk said a Board at a public meeting can impose reasonable rules during the conduct of the meeting. The meeting must be open for public access. There should be adequate public input allowed, subject to certain rules, such as orderly conduct. Attorney Elk stated there can be no secret votes. Ail votes must be open to the public and be recorded. All Members on a Board or Commission must vote unless they have a conflict of interest. "Conflict of interest" is defined where a matter ~o be heard or considered before the Board can inure to the special private gain or that of the Board Member, any principal o~her than a public agency, or any par~y which the Board may ha.ye been retained by or represent, or any family member of t~e Board. It must show special, private gains of that Board ~ember as to himself or to the other parties. - 5 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 With respect to a Member abstaining due to a conflict, Attorney Elk advised that Member may still be counted, but he must abstain from the vote and file a disclosure, stating the nature of his interest and why he is abstaining from the vote. At any public meeting, written minutes must be kept. They can be taken through recordings which can la~er be transcribed. With respect to penalties for the violation of the Sunshine Law, Attorney Elk stated it is a second degree misdemeanor which involves imprisonment not to exceed 60 days and/or a fine of $500. There can also be civil penalties imposed up to $500. If found guilty, a Board Member or Commission Member may be removed. If there was any question in the minds of any of the Members that there may be a violation, Attorney Elk advised the Member or Members should abstain from that action in all instances. Vice Chairman Lehnertz asked Attorney Elk to explain a conflic~ of interest with a special private gain. Attorney Elk thought most o~ the law read that if anyone can gain in any way by the vote (gain in income, interest, or anY person the person represents or family member ~n gain through that) in any way whatsoever, it is a sp-e~ial private gain to the person~ In his circumstances, Vice Chairman Lehnertz said he has actions he is trying to intervent into because he can see in one course of those actions being a loss to him and his neighborhood. If a different course was £ollowed, there would not be a gain to him or his neighbor- hood. There would be a status quo. Vice Chairman Lehnertz inquired wkether that was a conflict. If he was speaking of something such as an income by gain in value of housing in the community, it wou~d be a gain. The housing would become more valuable by the nature of that vote. I~ it would decrease th~ value, i~ would definitely inur~ ~o the person's gain or loss. Mr. Cannon asked abou~ maintaining it, as he felt that came up more often. He gave as an example someone living in a neighborhood, and some rezoning or site plan is near that person's neighborhood:. Vice Chairman Lehnertz clarified it is a situation where if the status quo is maintained, the value of the neighborhood will be maintained° The percep- tion is that i~ the s,~atus quo is not maintained~ the value of the neighborhood ~ill go down, at which point it would be a conflict of interes~t because of a special gain to him to - 6 u MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 vote, where if he would vote against a particular .applicant and for the status quo, that vote would maintain the status quo. It would maintain his neighborhood property. Attorney Elk thought there was a liberal enough interpretation where it could potentially be a gain to Vice Chairman Lehnertz. Chairman Rosenstock thought there would have to be a direct proven gain or loss. For example, many people are sitting on the Board and 20 blocks away from where they live, there will be adult entertainment. That is not a gain. Chairman Rosenstock thought it was a matter of a judgment call, which would be difficult to call. Attorney Elk replied there is some discretion. If it raises a question in a Board Member's mind, he thought the prudent thing was for that Member to abstain. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Cannon announced that the City Manager, the Consultant who is preparing land development regulations for the City, and he have scheduled a joint workshop meeting involving the City Commission, P&Z Board, and the Community Appearance Board (CAB] for ~uesday, June 26, 1990 at 6:00 P. M. in Commission Chambers. The land development regulations being prepared by the Consultant concern incentives for affordable housing, native habitat preservation, regulations for group homes, preservation of historic buildings, and environmental regulations. Mr. Cannon said there are probably half a dozen different land development regulations that have to be adopted p~rsuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan. As it was not 7:30 P. M. (when the public hearings were to be considered), Mr. Golden suggested the Board move to "SITE PLANS '~ OLD BUSINESS B. SITE PLANS NEW SITE PLANS Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Carriage Homes of Congress Lakes (f/k/a Gerulaitis Multi-Family Apartments~ Tom McMurrian Carriage Homes of Congress Lakes Associates West of North Congress Avenue, between - 7 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Legal Description: Description: the Boynton (C-16) Canal and N. W. 22nd Avenue Carriage Homes of Congress Lakes, being a part of Secs. 18 and 19, Twp. 45 S., Rge. 43 E., Palm Beach County, FL Request ~for site plan approval to construct a 466 unit multi-family rental apartment project and private recreation facilities on 36.11 acres in connection with a previously approved planned unit development (PUD) Tom McMurrian, 2010 Lindeil Boulevard, Delray Beach, FL 33444, apologized for not being at last month's meeting and thanked the Board for postponing this request. He gave the history of the project and stated they took it from a three s~ory apartment complex to a two story apartment complex. Mr. McMurrian showed the elevations. Discussion ensued about the garages. Chairman Rosenstock alluded to the fine reputation of the company Mr. McMurrian represents. He referred to the Catalina Center and the Holiday Inn, which have a Spanish type look. Chairman Rosenstock wondered why the entire atmosphere was changed. Mr. Howard called attention to the roofs. Mr. McMurrian explained the type of roof and said it looks very much like a shingle type roof. He stated that particular tile is as expensive as the "Z" tile or "S" tile bazrelled roof, so it was not a quality issue. Mr. McMurrian thought you could have too much of one thing, and he explained. He added their site plan will show more of a suzeet scape and residential community versus a big apartment complex. Chairman Rosenstock commented eight tennis courts did not make it much of a ~ennls complex. Hunters Run has 21 tennis courus. Mr. McMurrian replied there is a four acre vacant piece of land between the hotel and this complex. When they originally came through, that was uo be the health club and the other tennis courus. Mrs. Greenhouse did not think there had to be barrel tile roofs everywhere. She noted Mr. McMurrian was making a representation to the Board that the roofs he presented wo~ld be aesthetically more pleasing. Chairman Rosenstock was concerned because it was to be a tennis complex. Mr. McMurrian reminded him they had prior site plan approval. - 8 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 They could have done that if they wanted to, but they thought this would be a better project. There was discussion about the construction of the project and other projects. Mr. Richter commented that over the years, Mr. McMurrian's projects have proven to be very quality oriented. He agreed with Mrs. Greenhouse there should not be barrel tile roofs throughout the City. Mrs. Greenhouse understood Mr, McMurrian put a great burden on himself by allowing the mobile home park to have drainage on this property. Mr. McMurrian clarified they had to put in a drainage system to accommodate the water flow from the mobile home park's site onto their site and into the canal. Chairman Rosenstock inquired whether the type of landscaping depicted on the elevation would be put in. Mr. McMurrian answered affirmatively and added that they made a lot of adjustments to the landscaping. They had no objections to the staff comments. The Technical Review Board (TRB) recommended approval of the request, subject to the staff comments attached to the original copy OE these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addenda A through C inclusive and uo the following staff comments: Fire Department "Submit street name and address plan for approval to Police Department and Fire Department." Public Works Department "Details of compactor location and dimension musu be shown. Compactor must be compatible with City of Boynton Beach refuse removal equipment." Mr. Richter moved to approve the request, subject to staff comments. Vice Chairman Lehnertz seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. NEW BUSINESS B. SUBDIVISIONS MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION 1. Project Name: Bethesda Memorial Hospital - 9 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Agent. Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Charles B. Koval, Esq. ~ Bethesda Memorial Hospital, Inc. West side of South Seacrest Boulevard, south of Golf Road Bethesda Memorial Hospital Property, a replat of Benson Heights, Plat Book 24, Page 151 and part of Lot 12, Sec. 33, Twp. 45 S., Rge. 43 E., Plat Book 1, page 4, Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, FL Request for approval of an amended master plan to allow for the construc- tion of a day care center on.the site of two former residential homes and a 25,000 square foot proposed office building Mr. Golden read his memorandum No. 90-147 dated May 17, 1990, which was addressed to J. Scott Miller, City Manager. (See Addendum D attached to the original copy of these minutes in the office of the City Clerk.) On June 5, 1990, the City Commission accepted the recommendation from the TRB that this request did ~o~ constitute a substantial change to the approved master plan. Bruce Mandigo, Acting Director of Engineering, Bethesda Memorial Hospital, showed the location of the two houses that will be demolished. He informed Chairman Rosenstock approximately 100 children will be taken care of in the day care center. Mr. Collins asked how many employees there will be. Mr. Mandigo replied there will be four. He stated they were not changing much as far as impervious conditions. They were actually coming up with a little bit less. Comments were made abou5 the entrances to the center. Mr. Mandigo told the Members they were no longer considering the office building, and he said it should be deleted. Mr. Collins moved, seconded by Mr. Howard, to approve the amended master plan to allow for the construction of a day care center on the site of two former residential homes. Motion carried 7-0. - 10 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 OLD BUSINESS C. CONSISTENCY REVIEW (Pursuant to Chapter 163.3194 F.S.) 1. Review of Proposed Concurrency Management Ordinance for consistency with Comprehensive Plan Mr. Cannon stated he could best describe concurrency manage- ment as an accounting system. You have a finite number of facilities or a finite capacity in those facilities, and you have to divide existing projects, projects that have been approved but have no~ been approved yet, and future projects as far as who get what share of those public facilities. Mr. Cannon named the following public facilities: potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage, solid waste, parks and recreation. If a project is exempt from these regulations, that project consumes so much capacity in a public facility. If a project comes on line, is approved and concurrency is certified, that much capacity in the public facility is reserved. The heart and soul of this Ordinance are the exemption criteria. ~ne types of projects for each con- currency can be certified for each public facility. Mr. Cannon apprised the Members the rules are different for different public facilities. He explained how they could certify concurrency and exempt entire PUDs as far as road capacity, drainage, and parks. Mr. Cannon said basically, any PUD that was approved prior to June 1, 1990 or submitted and subsequently approved prior to June 1, 1990 is exempt as far as those three public facilities. Mr. Richter questioned whether that would also apply to Planned Industrial Developments (PIDs) and Planned Commercial Developments (PCDs). Mr. Cannon replied for public facili- ties where the Level of Service (LOS) is expressed on a per capita basis, the Ordinance does not apply to commercial and industrial projects. The only other alternative would be to try and express retail square footage or industrial acreage in terms of some corresponding population figure, which would be cumbersome for both the City and a developer. A commercial or industrial project would have to demonstrate they need the LOS for traffic. Mr. Richter noted this was the underlying document that governs everything in traffic, especially in the commercial and industrial areas. He thought potable water, waste managemensf and things like that would also enter into this, and he wondered how the State handles it. As far as potable water, sanitary sewer, and solid waste, Mr. Cannon answered they express those levels of service in terms of capacity - 11 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 per capita. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) found the LOS to be acceptable° The theory the City is proceeding under is the demand for commercial and industrial uses is a function of population with the exception of Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs). There is a special provision for DRIs. If it is industrial and not a brand new DRI, they only have to meet the traffic LOS and the drainage LOS. Previously approved DRIs are exempt from the Ordinance. Mr. Cannon continued by saying sanitary sewer, potable water, solid waste, recreation facilities, and district parks are facilities where the capacity is usually provided on some city wide basis. Consequently, the City's thinking was it is better to exempt only projects that actually have construction plans (site plan or plat). After explaining, Mr. Cannon said the Ordinance is pro-development. He elaborated. There was discussion. Mr. Richter commented it is preferred by City Planners because it can be done in increments. Therefore, it has to meet levels of service as they come along. Mr. Cannon added there are repeal revi- sions, if someone thinks he has a hardship. He explained. Chairman Rosenstock noted this became effective as of June 1, 1990, and the County's became effective February 1st. He asked whether there would be a conflict. Mr. Cannon replied there are ~wo areas where the County and City overlap. First is the Traffic Performance Standard Ordinance. This Ordinance incorporates that Ordinance by reference and says if it is repealed for some reason, the last Palm Beach County Ordinance is in effect in the City with the City's levels of service. At this point, the County's Ordinance supersedes the City's Ordinance. Mr. Cannon said the other two facilities where there is an overlap between the County and City's jurisdictions is in the area of water and service. So far, it has not been a problem. Palm Beach County has been requesting certification of concurrency from the City's Utilities Department. Mr. Cannon assumed it would not be a problem in the future. Mr. Richter commented that sometimes there is interjuris- dictional incompatibility. ~nese things are worked out by the Countywide Planning Council. Mr. Blanchette asked how this would affect the issuance of building permits. HA felt it would affect people in the City, sub-contractors, contractors, and developers as it has in the County. If a project was platted prior to the effec- tive date or if a preliminary plat and Health Department - 12 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 permits were submitted prior to June 1, 1990, Mr. Cannon said that projec5 would be exempt. The City is not shutting down subdivisions that are in process. When the City annexes properties, Mr. Blanchette said the properties will have to go through concurrency review. Mr. Cannon replied there is a provision that if a project was approved in Palm Beach County, the developer has the option of requesting that his project be subject only to the City's Concurrency Management Ordinance. He also has the option, by default, of allowing the County's concurrency rules to apply for a period of up to five years. After five years, the project automatically becomes subject to the City's rules. Mr. Cannon did not anticipate it would be a problem. Mr. Cannon told Mr. Collins they are working projects that require certification of concurrency into the existing system, and he explained. Mr. Cannon said the City hopes site plan approval will continue the way it is. No new paperwork for the applicants will be involved. Mr. Richter moved ~o recommend that the Concurrency Manage- ment Ordinance shows consistency with the City's Comprehen- sive Plan. Vice Chairman Lehnertz seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. OLD BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Continued May 8, 1990) LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING ProTect Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: West Boyn~on Beach Blvd. Retail/Oil-Lube Kieran J. Kilday, Kilday & Associates Bill R. Winchester Elsie A. Winchester Michael A. Schroeder William A. Zeiher West Boynuon Beach Boulevard at Winchester Park Boulevard, northeasu corner Request to show annexed land as "Local Retail Commercial" land use and to rezone from AR (Agricultural Resi- dential) in Palm Beach County uo C-3 (Community Commercial) 13 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Project Name: Agent: Owner: Old Boynton Rd./Congress Ave. Service Station Kieran J. Kilday, Kilday & Associates Bill R. Winchester Elsie A. Winchester Location: Description: North Congress Avenue at Old Boynton Road, southwest corner Request to show annexed land as "Local Retail Commercial" and ~o rezone from AR (Agricultural Residential) to C-3 (Community Commercial) By letter dated June 1, 1990, addressed to Mr. Golden, Kieran J. Kilday, Kilday & Associates, Landscape Architects/ Planners, 1551 Forum Place, Suite 100A, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, requested a postponeme~ of the above public hearings. Chairman Rosenstock announced that both requests would be CONTINUED until the next regular meeting of the Board on July 10, 1990. PARKING LOT VARIANCE Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Matthews Office Building Dale Construction Corp. Shirley Matthews South side of S. E. 23rd Avenue, of South Seacrest Boulevard East Lot 2, High Point, Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, recorded in Plat Book 23, Page 225 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida Requesu for a variance to Secs. 5-142 (h) (1) "Driveways" and 5-142 (i) (1) "Dimensional Requirements" of Article X-Parking Lots Mr. Golden read his Memorandum No. 90-160, dated May 29, 1990, which was addressed uo the Board. (See Addendum E attached ~o the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk.) The TRB recommended approvalt as out- lined in Mr. Golden's letter. . Mr. Richter stated these people are local people; the property is zoned properly, and he thought the Board should give them the relief requested. - 14 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYI~TON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 As no one wished to speak for or against the request, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Vice Chairman Lehnertz moved, seconded by Mr. Collins, to approve the request. Motion carried 7-0. NEW BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT i. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Woolbright Place (Poinciana Park) Kilday & Associates City of Boynton Beach Approximately 1,800 feet north of Woolbright Road, between the S.A.L. Railroad right-of-way and the L.W.D.D. E-4 Canal "Poinciana Park" lying in Blk. 34, as shown on the plat of "Lake Boynton Estates Plat 2", according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 14, Page 17 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida Request to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from "R~creational'~ to "Moderate Density Residential'~ pursuant to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement Mr. Cannon showed the location of the park site on the over- lay and said it was dedicated to the City when Lake Boynton was platted. Since Woolbright Place will be developed for apartments, it is no longer a practical location for a public park. As part of the master plan, the developer agreed to dedicate 3½ acres to the City and to provide one acre's worth of cash or public improvements. Mr. Cannon pointed out that the City will gain a neighborhood park that could be used for recreational purposes. ~e elaborated. Vice Chairman Lehnertz understood this was a request to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. He called attention to page 5 of the Stipulation Agreement and read: "Further, if Poinciana Park is relocated then the space it currently occupies shall be conveyed to TRADEWINDS - 15 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 without consideration and may be used for multi-family resi- dential purposes." Vice Chairman Lehnertz' interpretation was that until Poinciana Park is relocated~ the space is not to be conveyed to Tradewinds. As the Stipulation was part of the settlemenmt, City Attorney Elk wanted to review it further with respect to compliance with DCA. Mr. Cannon confirmed Mr. Collins' statement that it would not affect the request tonight. Mr. Cannon thought it would be a good idea for the City to get title to the land Tradewinds intends to dedicate prior to or at the same time the City deeds the property to Trade- winds. What Vice Chairman Lehner~z saw conceivably happening was by approving the request, which would essentially convey that property to Tradewinds to be used for multi-family purposest their requirement to provide Poinciana Park could be ignored, amd the City would have no stand to require that. As he read it, if Poinciana Park is retoca%ed, then rezoning should take place. For Poinciana Park to be construed to be relocated, Mr. Cannon said the City would have to simultaneously gain title to the land Tradewinds intends to dedicate. If there was a simultaneous transaction, Chairman Rosenstock remarked there would be no problem. Mr. Cannon said he would be opposed to the City giving them Poinciana Park prior to them dedicating the land they meed to dedicate. Vice Chairman Lehnertz commented about Tradewinds. Chairman Rosenstock inquired whether the City Attorney could be sure the land would not be transferred until there is a simultaneous trsnsaction. City Attorney Elk replied the City Attorney's Office could abide by that. No one in the audience wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Motion Mr. Collins moved to approve the request to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from "Recreational" to "Moderate Density Residential" pursuant to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. Mrs. Greenhouse seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Vice Chairman Lehnertz abstained from voting. (See Memorandum of Voting Conflict attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addendum F.) - 16 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 There was discussion as ~o whether the motion should be subject ~o the simultaneous transfer of the two properties. _Amended Motion Mr. Collins amended his motion to add it should be subject to a simultaneous transaction in the conveyance of those two properties. Mrs. Greenhouse seconded the amended motion, and the motion carried 6-0. Vice ~lairman Lehnertz again abstained from voting, as shown on Addendum F attached to the original copy oE these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk. REZONING m Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Shoppes of Woolbright Kilday & Associates Tradewinds Development Corporation East side of S. W. 8th Street extended, approximately 800 feet north of Woolbright Road See "Addendum G" attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk Request for rezoning of a 5.1871 acre parcel from Planned Unit Development (PUD w/LUI=5) to Planned Commercial Development (PCD) pursuant to Stipulation and Settlement Agreement Mr. Cannon informed the Board this rezoning was necessary ~o accommodate the enhancements that were given as par~ of the settlement for the Woolbright PCD and PUD. The rezoning consisted of 5.1871 acres in a strip along the northern boundary of the PCD. As part o~ the enhancements, the PCD square footage was allowed to be increased from approximately 173,000 square feet of retail and some 30,000 square feet of ofiice to 320,000 square feet of retail. In order to accommodate all of the retail square footage, it was necessary to add 5.1871 acres to the PCD. The addition of the 5.1871 acres was contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan. A~ this time, Mr. Cannon said they were amending the Land Use Plan to be consistent with the Settlement Stipulation and the Future Land Use Map that was adopted in November of 1989. The Future Land Use Map showed the additional 5.1871 acres as Commercial. 17 - MINUTES - PLAiqNING & ZONING BOARD BOIrNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Vice Chairman Lehnertz read paragraph 3 on page 2 o~ the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement, where it referred to "the 1986 Stipulation and Settlement Agreement. It was his understanding the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement was signed in 1989. Mr. Cannon explained they were referring to the original Settlemnt Agreement, which was executed in 1986. W~at the Members saw in the agenda package was the final Settlement Agreement, which included the enhancements. As no one in the audience wished to speak for or against the request, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Vice Chairman Lehnertz drew attention to page 8 of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement and read paragraph 20. He inquired how the 1989 Comprehensive Plan was amended. Mr. Cannon answered that it was not amended per se. He believed the Court O~der referred to in paragraph 20.amended thE-Land Use Plan retroactively to the 1986 Plan. Wl%en the City sen= the Plan to DCA after addressing its object~ons and recommendations, the City included this addition~ 5.1871 acres. It was Vice Chairman Lehnertz' understanding, according to Florida Statutes, that any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan had to go through a stated process, including public hearings and public acceptance by the City Commission. He understood none of this was done by this particular amend- men=. After commen=s by Chairman Rosenstock and Mr. Cannon about the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Cannon said only a Judge could answer the question posed by Vice Chairman Lehnertz. Vice Chairman Lehnertz wanted it reflected in the public record and wanted the audience to know there are certain State rules and requirements included in the Florida Statutes that say how the Comprehensive Plan should be changed. That process was not followed. It was Vice Chairman Lehnertz' personal feeling that the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement was null and void because those rules and requirements were no= followed. Therefore, he felt none of this should be approved by the Board. Due =o his other involvements in this issue, Vice Chairman Lehnertz was abstaining from voting, but he thought this should be brought up as a public issue. Mr. Richter moved, seconded by Mr. Collins, =o approve the reques=. Motion carried 6-0. Vice Chairman Lehnertz abstained from voting. See Memorandum of Voting Conflict attached as Addendum F to the original copy of these minutes in the O~fice of the City Clerk. - 18 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 LAND USE ELEMENT AM~NDMENT/REZONING/TEXT_ AMENDMENT Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD Kilday & Associates University of Florida Foundation, South side of West Boynton Beach Boulevard, between North Congress Avenue and Knuth Park Inc. See "Addendum G" attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk Request uo show annexed land as "Local Retail Commercial" land use and to rezone from AR [Agricultural Resi- dential) in Palm Beach County to PCD (Planned Commercial Development), to allo~ for the construction of a 120,000 square foot shopping center Project Name: Agenu: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Knuth Road PCD Kilday & Associates The Winchester Family Partnership, Ltd. West Boynton Beach Boulevard at Knuth Road, southwest corner Ail of Tracts 9 and 10 lying south of New Boynton Road (State Road No.~ ~04) and Tracts 23 and 24, Palm Beach Farms Company Plat No. 8, according to the. plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 5 at page 73 Of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida, less the East 15.0 feet thereof Request co show annexed land as "Local Retail Commercial" land use and to rezone from AR (Agricultural Resi- dential) in Palm Beach County to PCD (Planned Commercial Development), to allow for the construction of a 120,000 square foot shopping center Mr. Golden made a joint presentation on the uwo above requests. (See Addenda H and I att~ached to the original copy of these min.utes in the Office of the City Clerk.) He noted the County Planning Department is aware of these requests, and they will be forwarding correspondence. Mr. Golden said the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineer was 19 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYI~TON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 forwarded a copy of the developer's traffic impact~m~lysis. The County's comments are attached to the original co~py~o~ these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addendum J. Mr. Golden noted the County Ordinance leaves the determina- tion up to the Cities as to what is exempt from the Ordi- nance. The conclusion regarding traffic was that approval of these projects would consume road capacity needed for other parcels currently designated for commercial land use under the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Department recommended the requests be denied for the reasons outlined in Addenda H and I. If the P&Z Board recommended approval of the requests, said approvals would be subject ~o the following: Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD Staff comments contained in Addenda K, the original copy of these minutes in Clerk° L, and T attache~ to the Office of the City: Knuth Road PCD Building Department "~nere proposed PCD is directly adjacent to a residential zoned district, show a 25'0" wide greenbelt. All drawings must be consistent in identifying the greenbelt area." Staff comments contained in Addenda L, the original copy of these minutes in Clerk. M and U attached to the Office of the City Mr. Richter asked if the traffic link between Old Boynton Road and 1-95 has been over capacity since 1-95 was built. Mro Golden replied there is a plan %o six lane it scheduled for the 1990-1991 fiscal year. After the expansion, it still will not meet City or County standards as far as levels of service. Discussion ensued between Mr. Richter and Mr. Golden about traffic. Mr. Richter recalled the history of the proper%y. Kieran J. Kilday, Kilday & Associates, Landscape Architects/ Planners, 1551 Forum Place, Suite iOOA, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, believed the two properties were different, and he explained. He passed out a package outlining his responses to the items brought up by the City Staff on both projects, a fact sheet on pro~ec~ed tax revenues, and a breakdown on 20 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYi~TON BEACH, PLORIDA JUNE 12, lg90 water and sewer use, which was a concern of the Staff. (See Addenda N through Q inclusive, attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk.) Mr. Kilday stated he was representing Mr. Bill Winchester and Mr. Michael Schroeder. With reference to the Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD, Mr. Kilday informed the Members Mr. Schroeder is purchasing this property from the University of Florida Trust. He told the Members Mr. Winchester has owned the Knuth Road PCD land fo~ the last 15 years, The City always indicated it wanted.~these parcels annexed into the City but, as indicated by the staff reports, there are issues with regard to what should be the best land use. Mr. Kilday stated they are also proceeding with a Development of Regional Impact (DRI) on the balance of the property south of the Mall, which the Board wili see coming forward shortly to be annexed into the City. Mr. Kilday stated Knuth Road has become a real issue. It is on the City's Comprehensive Plan and has been designated to be a connecting road to Woolbright Road. It has been approved by the City to be rebuilt on an alignment that will give it direct access to the Mall. Chairman Rosenstock asked who will rebuild it. Mr. Kilday answered it will be rebuilt by a developer such as him. Chairman Rosenstock asked whether Mr. Kilday was going to extend bridges across both canals. Mr. Kilday answered affirmatively. Prior uo tonight, Chairman Rosenstock under- stood Mr. Kilday did not propose to extend bridges across both of the canals. Mr. Kilday replied that Tara O~ks PUD had an obligation to build the road in front of them. He thought there was some dispute as to whether they had the obligation to build the bridges. Between the three projects, (Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD, Knuth Road PCD, and Tara Oaks PUD), Mr. Kilday stated they were prepared to build Knuth Road all the way down to the Woolbright connection, includ- ing two canal crossings. He confirmed Chairman Rosenstock's statement that there will be a complete right-of-way and highway connecting West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Woolbright Road. Mr. Kilday pointed out some people do not like Knuth Road. He informed everyone it is on the City plan. It is not resulting as the effect of any of these three projects. He called attention to the fact that Banyan Creek is directly affected by other projects. Mr. Kilday stated they 21 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 recognized the ultimate utilization of the proper%ies, (whether high density or Commercial) would affect these people. Mr. Kilday stated they had meetings with the Associations and asked what they could do to make things work out with the people. After a meeting in the City Commission Chambers on Friday evening, June 8, 1990 and a meeting at the club- house on Monday, June 11, 1990, where the agreement attached to the original copy of these minutes in the office of the City Clerk as Addendum R was presented, they came to the general agreement that the majority of Association Members are supporting the projects, subject to the terms in the agreement. The Members of the Association said fine tuning needs to be done to the agreement. Mr. Kilday went on record as saying he had no objection to that. He stated tkere may be additional conditions that are not in the Agreemen~ (Addendum R), but everything contained in the Agreement is contained as a commitment of what his clients will provide ~o the Association. Currently, Mr. Kilday said Stonehaven Drive is a short cut. Chairman Rosenstock was concerned about the residents in Banyan Creek having to tolerate the flow of traffic. By building Knuth Road to Woolbright Road, Mr~ Kilday stated they will eliminate the desirability of cutting through Banyan Creek. In the past, the residents of Banyan Creek have approached the City and said they would like to keep every street in the community as a private street and make their community a private community. They were told because of fire safety reasons, that could not be done. Mr. Kilday said they have agreed ~o partic~ipa~e in applying for the abandonment of that road and have it dedicated back to the Association. He believed these~ ~ommunities were no diffrent than communities like Quail R~d~e and Hunters Run, where they have private roads, p~ovided it is not a danger to health, public safety, and welfare. ~nairman Rosenstock asked when the plans were filed. Mr. Kilday answered they were filed January 30, 1990. Chairman Rosenstock understood there may be a question because of a conflict between the County and City as to whether the applicant substantially complied prior to the February 1st deadline° In their opinion, Mr. Kilday replied they did have substantial completion, kfter explaining, Mr. Kilday said the City Staf~ determined these were completed appli- cations. (See Addendum S attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk°) - 22 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Mrs. Greenhouse questioned whether the main problem was the fact the master plan showed no improvements recommsmded for either of the two links. Mr. Kilday answered affirmatively and said there was one ma~or issue on traffic, which he would get into later. Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD Mr. Kilday said a majority of the site is covered in a combination of Melaleuca, Australian Pine, and Brazilian Pepper. There is muck on the site, and the site is disgraceful. He read "Applicant's Response" to the Staff's comments. (See Addendum N attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk.) With reference to paragraph B on page 2 of the Response, Mr. Kitday said they felt through adequate buffering, they would be able to take care of service and loading. He read what would be provided, as outlined in the Agreemen% (Addendum R). Mr. Kilday said the landscape plan and all of the drawings he had shown the Board would be part of the record. The additional berm coverage will be there. Mr. Richter asked what the distance is from the closest dwelling in the development to the back of the closes~ building in the shopping center. Mr. Kilday answered, "165 feet." He informed Mrs. DeLong they will finish the entire 360 degrees in back of the building in the same finish as the front of the building, so any kind of roof line above the wall will have the same frontage as it does on the part people see from the street. Mr. Kilday stated all of the requirements they stipulated to will be done simultaneous with the initial land improvement prior to any building permits being issued on the property. Chairman Rosenstock asked whether Mr. Kilday was familiar with the proposal that will be implemented very soon with regard to an agreement by a developer to fulfill all of the promises, plans and specifications specified to the Planning Department, this Board, and other departments of the City. Mr. Kilday answered affirmatively. Chairman Rosenstock asked whether Mr. Kilday would be willing to sign such an agreement. Mr. Kilday replied that he would. He offered that every term contained in the agreement shall become a par~ of any zoning Resolution and agreed to the addition of "including all of the elevations", which Mrs. Greenhouse suggested. - 23 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 After'reading item D on page 3 of the "Applicant's Response", (Addendum N), Mr. Kilday said the County is now rewriting the Municipal Implementation Ordinance for an August 1st deadline. They are making significant changes to reflect the fact that a use like this is not open at peak hours. K. S. Rogers, Consulting Engineer for the applicant, just received the report from Walter Keller, Traffic Engineer for the City~ and Mr. Rogers just finished his response. The only outstanding issue with r~gard to the road links was Boynton Beach Boulevard from Old Boynton Road to 1-95. It is to be widened. At ~he time it is widened, it will be under capacity. The problem is there has been a 15% per year increase on the road. Both Traffic Engineers do not believe the 15% increase will be a trend. Discussion ensued about traffic. Mr. Cannon asked whether Mr. Rogers' report included the additional traffic from the turnpike interchange. Mr. Kilday could not answer. Mr. Cannon responded the City would have to find that out. He asked if Mr. Rogers took into consideration the extension of Woolbright Road. Mr. Kilday answered affirmatively. There was fUrther discussion about traffic. Mr. Kilday referred to the nraffic studies, and said everyone a~greed the remain- lng links of Boynton Beach Boulevard through the foreseeable future will operate properly, so no issue has been created out west because of the ~urnpike opening, up. Chairman Rosenstock asked if there were any engineering facts. Vincent Finizio, Administrator of Engineering, said when Mr. Kilday specified that staff had written the County and said the applicant was hot under the jurisdiction of the Performance Standards, he meant one Staff Member oun of ten. After explaining, he stated his position was that both of the projects would fall under the jurisdictio~ of the Ordinances adopted by the City. Further comments were made by both Mr. Richter and Mr. Finizio. Mr. Finizio added that today, the applicant agreed to a few conditions he thought would protect the interests of the City relative to roadway improvements. The applicant agreed to comply with all staff comments by no later than Friday, June 15, 1990 at approximately 1:00 P. M. The applicant requested that the P&Z Board approve the projects conditioned upon the applicants' compliance with the staff comments. If the P&Z Board deemed this action appropriate, the P&Z Board Chairman could withhold his required signature from the master plan documents until such time as the City Staff notifies the Chairman that full compliance has been gained. - 24 - MINUTES - PLAIgNING & ZONING BOA_RD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 The applicant agreed to abide by the determination of the County Engineer regarding the jurisdiction and applicability of the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards and Municipal Ordinances relative to their pro3ects, as speci- fied in the staff comments. The applicant reserved the right to appeal any County determination. Mr. Richter felt the Board had to be flexible in some cases uo see the highest and best use for the City is achieved. Mr. Finizio tried to be flexible with the sites, and he said it could be accomplished by them providing a statement on the master plan that says the projects are subject to Palm Beach County Traffic Performance S~andards and Municipal Ordinances, If these properties are not subject to the Ordinances, it can be handled administratively in a matter of minutes. Mrs. Greenhouse asked if the applicant had agreed to that. Mr. Kilday had no problem with that. He said the County Ordinance de,scribes the.completion criteria for an application, and that was what they had been writing back and forth abouu. If the County Traffic Engineer says the applicant is governed by the C0u~ty Ordinances, Mr. Finizio stated the Ciuy will not be losing any major road- ways that should be built as a result of the~rojects in_its communities. Mr. Kilday wanted the lahguage GO be very clear as uo what he was agreeing to. ~uairman Rosenstock asked whether Mr. Kilday would agree to table the applications until the next meeting so the language would be clear before the Members voted. Mr. Kilday answered, "No." There were furthe,r comments by Mr. Kilday and Boar~ Members. Chairman Rosenstock thought this matter went a lot further than just the traffic. He was concerned as to whether they were abiding by the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman Rosenstock referred to the memorandum from the Planning Department (.Addendum H) and read from the third paragraph on page 7: the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern and would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare." Mr. Kilday thought they could agree on the language. In the future, Mrs. Greenhouse thought everyone should make sure everything is complete before it is brought to the Board, so the Members are not put in this position. Mr. Cannon asked if Mr. Kilday would have language drafted prior to the City Commission on Tuesday, June 19, 1990. He requested the - 25 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 information by Thursday, June 14, 1990, so he could include it with the Commission's agenda. Mr. Kilday had no problem with that and said he would put the language on the plan. Mr. Finizio stated he provided a certain set of comments relative to the site. The Engineering Department will not allow Mr. Kilday %o generate an agreement to put on the master plan for them to determine it is in compliance. The Engineering Department wants Mr. Kilday to say the pro3ect is governed by those Ordinances, and he can appeal it at the Engineer's level at that time. Chairman Rosenstock stated whether the Board approved or rejected this, he would not put his name on a set of plans when he did not know what the language would be. Mr. Kilday also wanted to see a copy of the language they were talking about. What they were talking about had a significant legal! effect on how the property would be viewed. All he wanted was for the language to be proper, and he deferre~d to the City Attorney to see that it would be. In Mrs. Greenhouse's opinion, the City Staff had the experts. She asked if, "The Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD shall comply with the requirements set forth within the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards" would be the exact language that should be on the master plan. Mr. Finizio confirmed that was right. Mrs. Greenhouse was concerned because Mr. Finizio said the plans were incomplete. Therefore, she was of the opinion this should not move forward unless they could come %o some determination as to whether that language should be there. Further comments were made about what Ordinances they were talking about. Mr. Kiiday voiced objections, saying this was sprung on him today, at the last minute. He wanted to move ahead because he filed the application three months ago. Now one Staff Member was getting up, making a change, and Mr. Kilday stated he could not help if there was an in-house problem. He was saying the language, as written, was fine, but he could not have Mr. Finizio throwing in one more clause. Mr. Kilday emphasized he would meet the staff commen~s. Mr. Cannon thought the problem was that when the TRB signed of~ on the plans, Mr. Finizio forgot to put "subject to his memorandum" on there. Mr. Finizio's memorandum was an addition to the agenda. Chairman Rosenstock inquired whether Mr. Kilday's clients would agree they will comply with the Traffic Performance - 26 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Standards as promulgated by the amended concurrency plan of the County and the City, as amended by August 1st, 1990. As Mr. Kilday did not know what the Standards would be, he could not agree. There seemed to be a question between the County and the City as to whether there was a substantial completion of the filing of the plans, Chairman Rosenstock did not want the Board to be caught in a Catch 22 between the County and the City. He wanted the issue resolved before the Board had to vote on it. Mr~ Kitday advised the Ordinance makes the City responsible for making the determination of completeness. Mr. Cannon makes that final determination, and that was what was contained in Mr. Cannon's letter (Addendum S). Mr. Kilday's mind, the issue was resolved. Chairman Rosenstock stated Alan Ennis, Palm Beach County Engineering Department, did not agree with Mr. Cannon, and he wanted the issue resolved. Mr. Cannon thought the City Commission should resolve that question. Mr. Richter personally felt Mr. Kilday and his clients ~were trying to resolve every issue, and he felt the City was ~ry- ing ~o do the same thing. He felt the Members sh~uld~ote, subject to the conditions. Mr. Collins added that was the way the Board normally did it. Mr. Kilday complained he had been given directions by about three people who had something different he should comply with. Mr. Cannon thought the Commission, as part of its review and adoption of the Concurrency Management Ordinance, would have to accept this as part of the Ordinance. The Ordinance includes exemption criteria witk respect ~o the County's Traffic Performance Standard Ordinance. The City Staff will then draw up a list of projects that will be exempt for each of the public facilities. Mr. Cannon thought they should defer this to the City Commission. Chairman Rosenstock wanted to hear what the audience had to say, and he asked people to limit their comments to three minutes. James Driscoll, 1796 Banyan Creek Circle North, thought the developer was attempting to be fair with his community. He was relying on the P&Z Board and the City Commission to make sure the commitments made to their community would be carried out. Christopher B. Beaton, 1809 Stonehaven Drive, Boynton Beach, FL 33436, believed he spoke on behalf of most of the people - 27 - MINUTES - PLAi~NING & ZONING BOARD ~ BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12,~ 1990 on Stonehaven Drive and in Banyan Creek in support or.the builder and the project. He thought privatization would lead to an immediate rise in their property values and stated anyone could ask him about guard gates, because he knows how they work. Mr. Beaton s~ressed emergency vehicles would have no problem with access and egress through guard gates. Mrs. DeLong asked whether Mr. Beaton had been trying t~ privatize the community for the past two years. Mr. Beaton replied he met with Mayor Moore on April 7, 1990 regarding what he felt to be intolerable traffic on Stonehaven Drive. He thought the City Commission should privatize Stonehaven Drive and said he started the privatization project in October, 1989. Sean Kearney, 1713 Banyan Creek Court, said they were trying to weigh what this developer was offering them and ensure they will ge~ wha~ is being offered to them. The issue was not yet resolved, but they were working in that direction as they thought they could ge5 that through the developer. Joseph P. Cervone, 1747 Banyan Creek Court, stated the Tara Oaks PUD would affect Banyan Creek. As the project is being devloped on paper, he wondered whether the Board would entertain petitions from the residents of Banyan Creek. Mr. Cervone questioned whether the City could take positions, based on the abutters' requests. Mr. Cervone was not aware of the traffic situation as planned for entrances to Knuth Road. Based on the fact that Knuth Road can only be a two lane road on a sixty foot width, he saw a high impac~ on Knuth Road, which is the primary entrance to their development and the primary entrance for bus traffic for Banyon Creek's children. Early in the deliberations, Mr. Cervone noted they were talking about a public access park or recreation land be- ween the commercial and residential developments. He heard no talk of that this evening. Mr. Cervone questioned whether that was merely hearsay. Mr. Cannon answered that the City had no~ heard anything and had not seen anything on the plans to indicate a recreation area would be provided. Mr. Cervone was led 5o believe there would be a park abutting the southern end of the Knuth Road commercial property. Mrs. DeLong asked whether there is a park consideration in the Tara Oaks PUD. Mr. Cannon answered affirmatively. - 28 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE"12, 1990 Mr. Cervone commented three projects affect Banyan Creek, and they had only heard two. He favored tabling this'issue until all language on the two projects could be cleared. Mr. Cervone inquired whether the developer was willing to give chronology on the commercial property. He explained to Chairman Rosenstock that was very important to Banyan Creek because the purchase of three plats could leave the two front commercial properties open as the last two to be developed. They may not be developed and sold after the rezoning. There was discussion about a rezoned property that may not be developed, buffers, and what the developer agreed to. Mr. Cannon stased under the Concurrency Management Ordinance being proposed for any planned zoning district, that zoning is good for 18 months. If they do not plat the property within 18 months, the applicant will lose his exemption and certification. Under that Ordinance, it is very difficult to get an extension. Roger Bennett, 1718 Banyan Creek Court, President of Stonehaven PUD, presented a petition with 109 signatures out of 166 homes that stated they will support the builder, per their agreement with the community. He thought they had a workable solution and said they will have a formal agreement at the Commission meeting for the final approval of this. Mr. Bennett saw no problem with this. He informed Mrs° DeLong this was a community matter, not an Association matter because it was not contained within Stonehaven's plat. Mr. Bennett read the petition in support of Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD, Knuth Road PCD, and Tara Oaks PUD. (The petition is in the applicant's file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Malcolm Sullivan, 3628 Royal Tern Circle, President of Quail Ridge Property Owners' Association, a community of 947 resi- dences, stated they abut the subject proper~y for the full back exposure of it on its west and south sides. He · objected to looking at the back side of a mall with noise, confusion, dumps~ers, traffic, and odors, and he was distressed about Knuth Road. He stated a commercial pocket will be created, and there seemed no necessity for it. Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Kilday last week about buffering. Although Mr. Kilday had done a lot of work with regard to Tara Oaks PUD, all Mr. Sullivan had a~ that time was an assurance it will be buffered. When Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Kilday who the tenants will be, he found not a single tenant has been signed up. ~e stated - 29 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 they were looking at 220,000 square feet of property which he hoped is not destined to stay vacant. Mr. Sullivan asked Mr. Kilday for a uraffic projection, which Mr. Kilday had promised to deliver on Saturday. Quail Ridge would have liked to see it. Mr. Sullivan emphasized there were a number of questions hanging on this property. The City Staff identified twelve, which he named. Mr. Sullivan hoped the petition for annexation and the shopping center would be denied. Phil Leslie, President~ COBWRA (Coalition of Boynton West Residential Association), informed the Commission COBWRA has 34 members and a population of probably 20,000 to 25,000 people. He passed out a newspaper clipping and said the City Staff covered many reasons why the petition should be denied. Mr. Leslie stated this plan does not confor~ with the City or County's Comprehensive Plans, and it does not comply with COBWR~'s Growth Control Plan. He explained and elaborated on why the project is not needed by re~er~ing to the mall and other shopping centers. Mr. Leslie said there is no commercial development on the south side of Boynton Beach Boulevard from the Carteret Bank at Military Trail all the way to this project. COBWRA believed that should continue. There are strip shopping centers on the north side, which are adequate for shopping. Mr. Leslie reminded the Members that al/ Comprehensive Plans indicate shopping centers should be at major intersections. Knuth Road is not a major intersection, and it may never be. This is the western gateway to the City of Boynton Beach. Mr. Leslie recalled when Tim Cannon testified against Jiffy Lube on the north side of Boynton Beach Boulevard at the intersection of Oakwood Drive because the area might be annexed into the City and he felt it would be inappropriate at that location. He stated this is inappropriate at this location. Mr. Leslie elaborated about empty office spaces, empty stores, blight, zoning, and the Comprehensive Plan. He under- stood the traffic study was incomplete. Mr. Leslie explained that COBWRA's concerns are Boynton Beach Boulevard, the turn- pike interchange, and the Intracoastal bridge. They have contributed and supported all phases of Boynnon Beach Boulevard's development. Quail Ridge, a member of COBWRA, abuts this property. Mr. Leslie stated they want this gate- way to the City to retain its attractiveness. Most of the - 3O MINUTES PLANNING ~ ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 neighbors and COBWRA do not want the projec=, and he urged the Commission to deny it. Patrick Booth, 1812 Edg~water Drive, opposed the applica- tions for Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD, Knuth Road PCD, and Tara Oaks PUD. There is no way the projects will conform with what is presently there. Mr. Booth was against any type of development other than what it was platted for (78 single family homes). Geraldine Delibero, 132 Tara Lakes Drive, West, could not comprehend how the City could go from 78 single family homes in Tara Oaks to 192. She hoped the Board would deny the request. Russell T. Brinson, 1824 Edgewater Drive, opposed all three sites, mainly Tara Oaks. He referred to the access from Knuth Road and said there ~s only a maximum of 75 feet-from the pavement to the fence at Quail Ridge. Mr. Brinson questioned how much of a road could be put in between there. Andrew Luchkowec, 1715 Banyan Creek Court, asked whether the City will abandon Stonehaven Boulevard upon the comple- tion of Knuth Road. Chairman Roslenstock answered that would be up to the City Commission. Mr. Luchkowec wondered if his community could achieve that. It was one of the items on the agreement they were endorsing the project under, and it must be approved. Mr. Luchkowec asked how they should pro- ceed. If the City Commission is in favor of the project, Mr. Cannon thought they would give Mr. Luchkowec a good indication next week of whether they are in favor of the abandonment. Robert Groelle, 53 Peachtree Place, Lakes of Tara, lives north of the proposed shopping center and directly east of Tara Oaks. He stated they were not offered any inducements to want the shopping center or high density residential in their back yards. It was apparent the inducements caused residents to endorse the development of this area despite the County and City's decisions they were not appropriate areas for this type of development. If the Board was in Board was in favor of what Mr. Kilday was saying, Mr. Groelle felt it would be because Knuth Road will be built through to Woolbright Road at the developer's expense. It sounded to Mr. Groelle as if the developer planned to build all three projects in conjunction with one another. By doing that, 192 units will be directly west of Tara Lakes - 31 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 and Clipper Cove. He called attention to the traffic that will be generated. Mr. Groelle heard no numbers about this and nothing to supporu the references. It seemed the under- lying theme was whether or not this would have a good appearance to the people in Stonehaven or the Boynton Beach Boulevard entrance and whether or not Knuth Road will be built. Mr. Groelle thought those considerations should be taken into account by the Board. Allowing development of this will drop the property values of Stonehaven and the ones further north. Mr. Richter asked why Mr. Groelle felt the property values would drop. Mr. Groelle answered Clipper Cove is just south of his development. If these developments are approved, Tara Oaks will have rental apartments and will completely block off Tara Lakes' westbound exit. There will be an island of single family homes sitting in the middle of rental apartments. Further comments were made abouu uses, Knuth Road, and the surrounding community. Tom Marshall, President, Tara Lakes Homeowners' Association, 17 Tara Lakes Drive East, state~ Lakes of Tara,is a community of approximately 145 single fam%ly homes, which abuts the east edge of the Tara Oaks property. The residents~'~Q~.Lakes of Tara are opposed to the proposed increase in density to support 192 units that will most likely result in rental property. Mr. Marshall further commented about low property values, decreased resalability, increased crime, noise, dis- respect for personal property, and the safety and welfare of the children in Lakes of Tara. Lakes of Tara was also opposed to the extension of S. W. Congress Boulevard to join the proposed extension of Knuth Road due to the increased traffic it will create as a short cut to Congress Avenue. Mr, Marshall said Lakes of Tara concurred with the developer's proposal uo terminate S. W. Congress Boulevard with a cul-de-sac. In the evenu the rezoning of Tara Oaks would be grgnted, Lakes of Tara asked that the following stipulations be met: (1) S. W. Congress Boulevard be terminated with a cul-de- sac. (2) No dwelling units will be constructed south of the north edge of S. W. Congress Boulevard. (3) Lakes of Tara be allowed to provide input and improve the landscaping plans immediately adjacent to Lakes of Tara. Kenneth Roper, 1814 Edgewater Drive, was opposed to all three of the proposed developments, specifically Tara Oaks. 32 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 With the proposed Land Use Element, he will be faced with~ looking out his front door au two story apartment complexes, which will be occupied by renters with no financial invest- ment in the property. He felt his property would be adversely affected. Mr. Roper thought a lot of people who were in support of this were lured by the promise of privatization. Lois West, 109 Azalea Circle, representing a row of people present at the meeting, opposed the rezoning due to traffic. She did not ~nink the cul-de-sac was a good idea either and thought the projects should be tabled. Ms. West stated the residents were told by a realtor the value of their homes would go down if tke projects were approved. Stella Rossi, 625 Whispering Pines Road, speaking on behalf of the Coalition for Wilderness Islands, was speaking particularly of Tara Oaks. Her organization wished to point out a population of gopher tortoises, a protected species, exists on this site. Mrs. Rossi further mentioned endangered and rare status plants. She believed the U. S. Wildlife and Florida Freshwater and Game Commission would attest to the fact that relocation sites are virtually nonexistent in Palm Beach County. May Colby, 1810 Edgewater Drive, was against all three projects. She wanted single family communities. Peggy L. Field, 1826 Edgewater Drive, said the majority of people who signed the petition agreeing to the rezonlng live in the center of Banyan Creek. They do not live along Edge- water Drive and will not have to listen to trucks behind the shopping center. The apartments to the south maintain 70% non-occupancy. She was not in favor of any of the projects. Mike McCoy, 1822 Edgewater Drive, did not think all 109 people who signed the agreement received the letter that went out. He supported Quail Ridge, COBWRA, and the Coalition for Wilderness Islands. He noted the majority of objections were coming from Edgewater Drive, which will face the brunt of Knuth Road and Tara Oaks. The residents of Edgewater Drive do not want Knuth Road and would like to pursue having it abandoned. Mr. McCoy also spoke about traffic, noise, Miami, drug use, Tara Oaks, Quail Ridge, and the quietness of his neighborhood, a four lane or six lane highway, and the two commercial properties. He stated he and almost all of his neighbors were told Knuth Road would never go through. - 33 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Mr. McCoy emphasized this will ruin property values because he is in a PUD community. He stated the developer refused to put money into escrow and talked uo just one development about privatization. Mr. McCoy wanted everything to remain status quo. Kevin Clair, 1815 Stonehaven Drive, Past President of the Homeowners' Association of Stomehaven, stated he has had professional dealings with Kilday & Associates, and he held Mr. Kilday and his people in the highest regard. He thought they represented the best opportunity for Stonehaven Home- owners' Association to improve its property values, security, and safety through privatizationo Mr. Clair felt tabling the matters would only result in harm to the owner. He knew this would have to go to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee. If thro~'n out of that sequence~ it is unlikely this will be developed before next year. Mr. Clair referred to Stonehaven's budget and s~id the projects would be economically feasible. Jackie Brady. 1781 Banyan Creek Circle North, felt the projects Should be denied. She stated there was no guaran- tee the wall would protect them. Ms. Brady told the Members some of the 109 who signed the petition wish they had that piece of paper back. She felt the requests should be tabled so people who signed the petition au the meeting on Friday, June 8, 1990 could change their minds. As no one else wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the requests, THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WERE CLOSED. Mr. Richter informed everyone Knuth Road only has room for ~wo lanes. There will not be four or six lanes. Mr. Kilday reported that he and Mr. Finizio reached an agreemenu on the Language. On each of the applications, it will read: "~natever the name of the PCD, it shall comply with the applicable requirements set forth within the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards." THE BOARD TOOK A RECESS AT 10:30 P. M. at 10:45 P. M. The meeting resumed Although he only spoke about one of the projects, Mr. K~lday noticed all three were referred to by the people. He stated the people who agreed to the projects had the benefit Of all of the information, and he explained. One issue Mr. Kilday heard consistently was concern over Knuth Road. That was - 34 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACE, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 non being made to happen because the right-of-way for Knuth Road had already been dedicated to the City. For some reason, the City had never required the developer to eonsnruct the entire length of it. Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD With regard to the Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD, ~he thing that bothered Mr. Kilday the most was the following sentence in the staff's report: "The proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern and would arguably constitute a grant ~f special privilege to an indi- vidual property owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare." He had an aerial showing the property is located at a major intersection, next to a public facility and industrial property. Mr. Kilday believed the property was not a special privilege to the owner but was consistent. Ee thought the curren~ language in the plan which says C-4 zoning should be allowed on the property it abuts to the east left this property out. Ee thought that was because of an absentee owner, who was unaware of what decisions were made. M~. Kilday asked the Members to vote in favor of the Boynton ~each Boulevard PCD. Vice Chairman Lehnertz did not feel the rezoning was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Element. Ee pointed out than the Board, City Commission, and Citizens spent many hours going over the Comprehensive Plan. To have someone from outside the City say they want to rewrite the text of the Comprehensive Plan did not do justice to the Board, the City Commission, or the citizens who gave their input. Vice Chairman Lehnertz referred to the residential development~ and school directly to the south and said the school goes more with residential zoning znstead of commercial zoning. The only place with a negative impact in terms of residenb~al was along the eastern border, which has the storage facility and tk$ post.office. Vice Chairman Lehnertz thou~kt they should look at the Comprehensive Plan. Chairman R~senst~e~ was in agreement that the Comprehensive Pi~ s!hould be strictly adhered to. It seemed to Mr. Richter that something better had come along than what the Members had recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, and he explained. If they build high density apartments there, he wondered who would rent them. Mr. Richter felt this was the highest and best use. He also felt Mr. Kilday showed concern for the surrounding neighbor- hood. Mr. Richter was in favor of the project. 35 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Mr. Collins was concerned about taxes and looked at the figures in the agenda packets the Members had. He also felt there would be more jobs. Those were things he looks at when making recommendations. Mr. Collins thought some- times you have to change and be flexible. Be was in favor of the project. Mr. Howard agreed with what Vice Chairman Lehnertz said. He did not think it would be right to change the Compre- hensive Plano Mr~ Howard was against it. Motion re Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD Mr. Richter moved to approve the request, subject to staff comments and continued negotiations with the neighborhood~ according to the agreement that was presented. Mr. Collins seconded the motion. Mrs. Greenhouse commented the citizens could get something far worse in the future. That was something she was taking into consideration in making her determination. A vo~e was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 4-3. Chairman Rosenstoek, Vice Chairman Lehnertz, and Mr. Howard voted against the motion. Knuth Road PCD Mr. Kilday informed Vice Chairman Lehnertz that in this case, the owner is not an out of town resident. Mr° Winchester has owned the properny for many years. Mr. Kilday read from the Applicant's Response. (See Addendum O.) With regard no Quail Ridge, he stated they will provide the same landscape treatment as indicated on the earlier project with one difference. In this case, they do not want to provide walls around the site. Mr. Kiernan showed where Quail Ridge ends and said there is an old platted 30 foot right-of-way, and he did not know whether it would remain there. They will be providing 25 feet of landscaped area around there. To the south, a six foot chain link fence is around the entire property. Mr. Kilday stated Quail Ridge will non be negatively affected by this project. Mr. Kilday believed if Knuth Road is not built by them, it will be built by someone because it is in the City's plans. He stated a wall should be provided. The wall will take care of whatever impact this project will have and also whatever impact all the other cars that will use Knuth - 36 MINUTES - PLAi~NING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Road from Woolbright Road will have. This should have been done by the original developer because everyone knows Knuth Road was in a plat. In the construction of Knuth Road, Mr. Kilda~ stated they included in the plans a six foot wall. He showed where the wall will be and said they provided for the wall in the agreement on this project. Mr. Kilday said none of the Edgewater people abut the project, but they abut Knuth Road. Mr. Kilday stated the Comprehensive Plan says commercial development should be promoted at intersections and strip cen~ers should be removed. He thought they were meeting the Plan's intent. Mr. Kilday stated signalization is needed, and they agreed to that requirement. In response to a question asked by Mr. Howard, Mr. Kilday said the Association wanted barbwire on top of the wall in the other project. Mr. Cannon advised barbwire is not allowed in the City. Mrs. Greenhouse asked whose res~oni- bility it is to maintain the wall. Mr. Kilday answered they will provide the wall, but they will not provide the main- nenance because it would be off of their property. Mr. Cannon inquired whether there is a common area abutting Knuth Road that the Homeowners' Association maintains.~ On the north side of the entrance, Mr. Kilday said there is common area maintained by the Association. On the south side is a private parking tract also owned by the Associa- tion. Mrs. DeLong asked how far away Edgewater Drive is. Mr. Kilday explained, and said it would be 75 feet off Knuth Road. He stated the Association would have to address the maintenance issue. Mr. Roger Bennett responded it was agreed the Homeowners' Association would maintain that wall because it would be on their property. They did not address the rest of the wall. Mr. Kilday had no problem agreeing that the applicant will maintain the wall for a certazn period of time into the future. The Association should take it over following that time. Mr. Bennett thought that could be worked ouT° Mr. Cannon advised the wall abutting Quail Ridge would be a Code requirement, and the applicant would have to get a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Mro Kilday had no problem with that. He stated they would do it by Code unless they could get a variance on it. 37 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYIgTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Motion re Knuth Road PCD Mr. Collins moved to approve the request, subject to staff comments. Mr. Richter seconded tbs motion. Vice Chairman Lehnertz had very severe reservations about the application. At build out, they will have 45 to 105 excess acres of commercially zoned property within the City. Vice Chairman Lehnertz emphasized that the City does not need another 120,000 square foot shopping center. The Comprehensive Plan says the City should not allow acreage which is greater than the demand pro~ected unless they demonstrate a particular proper~y is unsuitable for any other use. If they would revisit the Comprehensive Plan and consider the actions of the Board on a previous action, the Comprehensive Plan could reasonably be changed to say this entire area should be Moderate ~ensity/Resident~al as opposed to partially Commercial and partially Moderate Density/Residential considering the fact that Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD was not supposed ~o be Commercial at all. From what the City Staff said~ Vice Chairman Lehnertz stated approval of an additional retail development in the City may limit and compete with prospects fo~ the redevelopment of the Central Business District (CBD), U. S. 1, and Boynton Beach Boulevard east of 1-95. The applicant himself said in his responses to the City the only other place this could go would be in the CBD. Vice Chairman Lehnertz expounded about the CBD and emphasized there was not sufficient justification to approve this. Mr. Richter stated the CBD had not been figured into this plan as far as build out. ~ne projection for build oun is everybody's educated guess. Mr. Richter felt said any way you look at it. this is a commercial piece of property. He questioned who would want to build homes on a six or eight lane road, and he referred to the surrounding commercial property. Chairman Rosenstock asked how he felt about the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Richter thought that was the best guess at the time the Comprehensive Plan was put together. Vice Chairman Lehnertz referred to CaZa Btanca, which looks like a very successful residential area. Mrs. DeLong called attention to the number of rental apartments in the area. Amendment to Motion Mrs. Greenhouse asked whether the motion included the agree- ment. (See Agreement attached as Addendum R to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk.) Mr. Collins and Mr. Richter agreed no this amendment to the motion. - 38 - MI~TES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH~ FLORIDA JUNE 12; 1990 A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 4-3. Vice Chairman Lehnertz, Mr. Howard, and Chairman Rosenstock voted against the motion. LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING/TEXT AMENDMENT Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Tara Oaks PUD Kilday & Associates John Lambert Van Hezewyk and Anita Louise Van Hezewyk East side of Knuth Road extended south, between the L.W.D.D. L-25 and L-26 Canals See "Addendum V" attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk Request to amend the Future Land~ ~e Element of the Comprehensive Plan"f~om "Low Density Residential" to "Medium Density Residential" and to rezone from PUD w/LUI=4 to PUD w/LUI=5 to allow for the construction of 192 multi-family dwelling units and a church Ms. Heyden made the presentation by reading from the P~Z Board's Memorandum No. 90-177. (See Addendum W attached to the original copy of these minutes in the office of the City Clerk.) It was the Planning Department's r~commendation that the requests for Future Land Use Element amendment and rezoning be denied but that a land use density of 7.26 du/ acre (Moderate Density Residential") be approved. If approved~ the request would be subject to the staff comments attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addenda X through Z i~cluslve, Addendum AA, and the following comments: Police Department "Location of recreation area is too remote; should be moved ~o center of complex (Public Safety)". Forester/Horticulturist "Thei applicant must submit a tree survey and tree management plan in accordance with City Ordinance ~81-21. Ail efforts should be to preserve existing trees in large open space areas, rather than replacement. - 39 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Applicant must prepare an environmental assessment of plane and animal species on site, especiall~ to include existing gopher tortoises and scrub jay populations." For the record, Chairman Rosenstock stated the public hear- ing they held prior to these discussions encompassed all three items (Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD, Knuth Road PCD, and Tara Oaks PUD). ~e wanted everyone to understand THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion ensued about the intensity of land use. The "Applicants Response" to issues raised by the City Staff is attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as "Addendum BB. Mr. Kilday stated the water usage was significantly reduced by the incorporation of the three projects. In response to Mrs. Greenhouse's question as to whether he could accommo- date Moderate Density, Mr. Kilday said the project was approved for 78 units with a condition that Knuth Road along the entire frontage of the property should be constructed. ~e stated the project could not be built and support that. Other lots would end up with their back yards against Knuth Road. In this case, the back yards will be on the lake and the driveways will be on Knuth Road. M~. Kilday e~plained how they cut costs down so they could build Knuth 'Road. Mr. Cannon asked whether Mr. Kilday was willing to let the City write that the basic arrangement of the land use is in the plan itself and also that the maximum building height is two stories, as indicated on the plan. Mr. Kilday answered, "Yes, we are." With those conditions, Mr. Cannon said the main question would be the density created as far as planning for the water and sewer area. If they limit it to two stories and the uses on the south 1/3rd to recreational, institutional, open space, and water retentions it would take care of most of the land use conflict problems. Vice Chairman Lehnertz recalled Mrs. Rossi mentioned there is a significant populations of gopher tortoises along with associated food, and he asked her to indicate the locations on the overlay. Mrs. Rossi apprised the Members the gopher tortoises and assocLated food are located wes~ of the racque~ ball court and in Clipper Cove. She told Mrs. Greenhouse it would be better for them to be located on the site rather than off the site, and she informed Mr. Richter scrub habitat cannot be moved very successfully. Mrs. Rossi 40 MINUTES PLAiqNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 explained. Mr. Kilday indicated where the scrub area occurs. He guessed the main feeding area for the tortoises was on the south side of the property. Mrs. Greenhouse wondered how the Board could make sure, if this is approved, that the Lakes of Tara people would be looking at a church and a lake as opposed to being subjected to a higher density. Mr. Cannon replied that was why he suggested to Mr. Kilday that they write into the plan the parameters of the development property as far as the build- ing height and the uses of the southern 1/3rd of the PUD. Mr. Kilday again said he had no objection to that. A woman in the audience alluded to the northern end. Mr. Kilday stated that one gentleman (Mr. Groelle) had misrepresented virtually everything he said in the meet- ings. As ro the two homes to the north, he stated they will maintain a minimum 40 foot setback off our north property line. (See Addendum R attached to the original copy of these minutes.) Mr. Cannon asked Mr. Kilday whether he would be willing to let the City write the buffer requirements on the north end of the Comprehensive Plan also. Mr. Kilday answered that was fine with him. Mr. Cannon explained that way, if they want to make an amendment, they will have to go back to the permitted procedure, which is not an easy process. Vice Chairman Lehnertz inquired whether something could be worked into the language to edge the developer toward pre- serving the gopher tortoises on the site. By State law, Mr. Cannon said the gopher tortoises have to be relocated. Vice Chairman Lehnertz called attention to the fact it would be preferable to keep them on the site. Mr. Kilday had no problem with the condition that they try to preserve them on site as much as possible, subject to the limitations and restrictions of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Pish Commission. Mr. Richter moved to approve the request, subject %o staff comments, and subject to the plan amendments the applicant consented to. Mr. Collins seconded the motion, and the motion carried 5-2. Mr. Howard and Vice Chairman Lehnertz voted against the motion. TEXT AMENDMENT 6. Project Name: Winchester Text Amendment Agent: Kilday & Associates - 41 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Owners: Location: Description: Bill & Elsie Winchester; Florida Gas Transmission Company; Mall Corner, Inc.; Ernest Klatt & Bill Winchester~ F. C. & Dorothy L. Mish; E. J. & patricia C. Rascati; Marilyn R. Davis Area bordered by Old Boynton Road on the north, Congress Avenue on the east, the L.W.D.D. L-24 Canal on the south and Knuth Road on the west Request to amend i%rea 7.f of the Future Land Use Element Support Documents to allow parcels under three (3) .acre size to be zoned C-3 (Community Commercial) instead of PCD (Planned Commercial Development) if they. meet the intent of the PCD greenbelt standards Mr. Golden said this application was submitted in connec- tion with three applications submitted~earlier. They were Mall Corner Restaurant (heard last month), West Boynton Beach Blvd. Retail/Oil-Lube an~ Old Boynton Rd./Wesu Congress Ave. Service Station, which were continued until July. Mr. Golden read from the Planning DePartment's Memorandum No. 90-163 (Addsndum CC attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk). Mr. Kilday was in total agreemenu With the Staff's recommended amendment. As no one in the audience wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the request, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Vice Chairman Lehnertz moved to approve the request, as modi- fied by the City Planning Department and as agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Richter seconded the motion. Mr. Golden informed Vice Chairman Lehnertz the language concerning PCD greenbelt suandards was modified somewhat by uhe staff recommendations, but his motion covered it. A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. C. SITE PLANS NEW SITE PLANS i. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Palm Beach Leisureville Craig Livingston, Projecu Architect Joseph & Alfred Campanelli - 42 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYI~TON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Location: Description: South Congress Avenue at Golf Lane, northeast corner Request for site plan approval to allow for the construction of an entrance wall sign Ms. Heyden made the presentation. The TRB recommended approval of the request, subject to the staff comments attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addendum DD and to the following comments: Police Department "I ~ave reviewed the site and found it to have stakes that outline the proposed wall tha~ the sign should be located on~ I would recommend that the west side of the wall be moved 3 feet east to permit greater visibility for persons exiting S. W. Gulf Lane onto S. Congress Avenue.'~ Planning Department "1. No information is provided showing existing landscaping or proposed landscaping in the vicinity of the wall sign to determine its effect on traffic visibility. Appendix A, Sec. ll.A.9. 2. The wall color, compatible with surrounding buildings, is not indicated. Chapter 21, Sec. 21-14(M)(2). 3. The drawing submitted does not clearly indicate how far the wall will be set back from the right-of-way or property line. Appendix A, Sec. ll.A.10." Mr. Collins moved to approve the request, subject to staff eommennSo Mr. Howard seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Quantum Park Manufacturing Building Adolfo J. Cotilla, Jr., AIA, Project A~chitect Quantum Associates West of Interstate 95, between Miner Road and the Boynton (C-16) Canal Lots 41C & 42A of Quantum Park ~t~ Boynton Beach, P.I.D. Plat No.~!~9%'lying in Secs. 17 & 20, Twp. 45 S., Rge. 43 E., County of Palm Beach, State of Florida, being a replat of a portion of - 43 - MINUTES - PLA~NNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUN~ 12, 1990 Description: the plat of Quantum Park at Boynton Beach P.I.D. plat No. 4, Plat B~ok 57, pages 186-188 Request for site plan and use approval to construct a 40,000 square foot manu- facturing building on Lots 41C and 42A at the Quantum Park of Commerce Planned Industrial Development Ms. Heyden made the presentation. The TRB recommended approval of the request, subject to staff comments attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addenda EE through II inclusive, and t® the following comments: Police Department "1. Comply with Building Security Code (5-8G). 2. South exit also be made two-way in and out. 3. Parking lot lighting photocell activated. 4. While n~t a requirement, I would suggest for security purposes tha~ you separate your shipping and receiving points to reduce the chances of internal theft." Fire Department "Fire hydra~ts shall conform to City subdivision require- ments. A fire hydrant Shall be placed in close proximity ~o and be visible from Ridge Boulevard. A fire hydrant shall be coordinated with the Fire Department connection." Adolfo J. Cotilla, Jr., AIA, 4300 North University Drive, Suite B-I04, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33351, agreed to most of the staff comments. He informed the Members that a new site plan was submitted, and the comments were just made avail- able to the applicant today. The applicant had a problem with the sidewalk requirements. A sidewalk had been shown on the original plan, which was an oversight, so it was deleted. Mro Cotilla objected to putting in a sidewalk because a combination sidewalk and bicycle path is across the street. Michael J. Toil, Development Manager, Quantum Corporate Park, The 110 Tower, 21st Floor, 110 S. E. 6th Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3415, reminded the Members the PID had provided, through the site plan approval process, a - 44 'MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 pedestrian access plan. In conjunction with the completion of all of the infrastructure work, they provided all pedestrian access, which was mostly bicycle paths and side- walks along N. W. 22nd Avenue. Mr. Cannon advised this was an issue which went back to the Development of Regional Impact (DRI), which was approved subject to them providing a combination of a pedestrian/bike path system. It did not specify that it had to be along both sides of every road. The DRI conditions supersede the City's Code requirements. Mrs. Greenhouse called attention to comment 5 from the Planning Department (Addendum ~H), which said the sidewalk on the west side of Park Ridge Boulevard should be added to the site plan. Mr. Cannon advised that comment should be deleted. Mr. Cotilla pointed out there were other comments that had been addressed before, one other comment he wished t~ bring to the Board's attention was the establishmen~ of a typical greenbelt. (See comment 4 from the Building Department in Addendum EE.) The applicant did not agree with the comment where they have to submit a typical greenbelt for all like peripheral lots. Mr. Cotiila stated they already made the changes on the plans to make sure there is a greenbelt. Since this was an issue that applied to the entire park as far as the construction of the peripheral greenbelts, Mr. Cannon thought the Board should make a recommendation to the City Commission as to whether they think the developer should provide the greenbelts for the entire property as required by the Code. and let the City Commission decide whether they are going to make Quantum provide greenbelts in their entirety a~ this tim~ or~ whether they can be constructed on a lot by lot basis. Mr. Richter thought Quantum Park had ~a~ exceeded ~he greenbelt requirements, based on their DRI. A ter discussion, Mr. C~nnon advised Chairman Rosenstock there is a Code requireme,nt that they p~ovide a peripheral greenbelt, but the Code is unclear as to who has to build ~hem a~d when. The issuei has to be resolved. There was further discussion about the greenbelt. Mr. Aguila suggested the Board approve the request, subject no staff comments, and request the City Commission to address the greenbelt as a separate issue. Mr. Finizio interjected that had already been agreed upon. At every staff meeting, each site plan that comes through is to pro- vide a greenbelt. Chairman Rosenstock asked i~ he was specifically referring to Quantum Park. Mr. Finizio - 45 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 confirmed that was correct. Mr. Cotilla replied that was exactly what they were doing. They were providing a green- belt for each site plan that comes in. Mr. Cannon asked whether it was on record anywhere that the City Commission ever took action that that's their policy for the entire park. Mr. Finizio answered it was evident it was the City Commission's policy. They've been responsible for putting the greenbelts in from Day One. M_r~ Cannon reiterated they should have formal action from the City Commission that this is their desire., so the Board does not have to go through this for every lot. Motion Mr. Richter moved that the Board recommend to the City Commission that Quantum Park develop on a lot by lot basis the greenbelt that is required and already stipulated to be implemented by the developer. Mr. ~oward seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. Vice Chairman Lehnertz understood Quantum either did not have a particular buyer for this, or they had someone they could no~ disclose to the Board. Mr. Cotilla confirmed that was correct. Uice Chairman Lehnertz drew attention to comment 96 from the Planning Department (Addendum EH). He had a serious concern because electronics research and manu- facturing in particular happen to be violators of releasing carbon tetrachloride. Vi~e Chairman Lehnertz wondered whether that would be covered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). After further discussion, Mr. Cannon informed him under the City's Code, electronics manufacturing goes through e~vironmental review. There were additional comments. Motion Mr. Richter moved ~o approve the request, comments° Mr. Howard seconded the motion, carried 7-0. subject to staff and the motion SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Boynton Beach Promenade John Glidden. Project Architect C. S. of Texas, Inc. West side of North Congress Avenue, south of the Boynton (C-16) Canal - 46 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BE~CH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Legal Description: Description: See "Addendum JJ" attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk Request for approval of an amended site plan to allow for a change in parking lot layout and building elevations Ms. Heyden made the presentation and explained the changes requested by the applicant. The TRB recommended approval of th~ request, with the exception of the north mall access road modifications and the change in the access aisle at the northern main driveway. Said approval would be subject to the staff comments attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk as Addenda KK through MM inclusive and to the following comments: Utilities Department '1. Irrigation is not to be supplied by City water. 2. Project ID sign 'Gl9' is shown in the utilities easement. Redesign the sign to minimize possibility of damage due to failure or maintenance of underground utilities and provide the City with a hold harmless agreement should your design prove inadequate. 3. Show details of ribbon pump station. 4. An 8~' Water main runs along the south face of the developmenn following the existing parking lot. Monitor A-1 south face needs to be relocated outside of the utility easement. Pavement material in south Promenade needs to be specified and approved by City Utility Department." Police Department "1. No parking along throat of East entrance off North mall road. 2. Stop signs conform to DOT standards. 3. Median along North mall road to remain.'~ John Glidden, Agent, Oliver-Glidden & Partners, Architects & Planners, Inc., 1401 Forum Way, Suite 100, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, informed Chairman Rosenstock the balls in the exterior building changes will be spun aluminum. They have been structurally engineered. Ms. Heyden showed how the main project sign would be changed. Chairman Rosenstock questioned the TRB's exceptions to the approval. Ms. Heyden replied those changes in the plan - 47 MINUTES ~ PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BoYNToN BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 would allow cars to back out into the access aisle. At that point, there is limited visibility. Mr. Glidden stated he reviewed the staff comments. With regard to the 12 parking spaces at the north entry, Mr. Glidden said one reason this center has had such difficulty in becoming vital had to do with its proximity of parking to the retail spaces in the center. His client wanted to get some parking spaces to serve the retail on the north end of the building. Mr. Glidden thought the comment from the City Staff was partly geared around a zoning Ordinance that requires a 100 foot stacking when you are coming off a dedi- cated right-of-way. The north mall's entrance is a private driveway and not a dedica%ed right-of-way. As a reasonable compromise, Mr. Glidden suggested taking the northernmost 80 feet of that entrance drive and eliminating eight parking spaces, leaving those to be access on the bank side of the parking area. After they get past 80 ~eet in the stacking distance, Mr. Glidden asked that they be allowed to have four or five car spaces for the retail. Mr. Finizlo interjected it should stay exactly the way it is for safety reasons. Chairman Rosenetock asked about the comment Ms. Heyden just made about Visibility when you are backing out. Mr. Glidden called attention to the last project and said there were five points of access to that site. Everyone had cars backing out onto the entrance driveway. He thought if they looked at every project the City has, depending on traffic level~s, they would find having 80 ~eet into the p~oject should not be an issue. Mr. Glidden said they could use the 80 f~et to observe every- thing that is going on inside the property line. He stressed their need to get parking service to the building and drew attention to their inability to turn left into the rear of the building. Mr. Glidden was also ~rying to.get parking in front of the retail. Mark Fuller, Graphic Designer for the project, proposed a free standing flag ribbon. Their only identification for the project occurs on Congress Avenue at the center of the project. Mr. Fuller said they were showing four signs and he indicated their locations. After discussion about the s~gns, Mr. Cannon advised if the signa~e did not meet the Code, only the City Commission could grant a variance. Mr. Cannon asked whether the TRB said these would be major driveways. He wondered what the basis was for the 100 foot - 48 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYI~TON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 stacking requirement. Ms. approved before her time. t00 foot requirement° Heyden replied the project was The TRB said they should meet the Mike Swenson, Landscape Architect, wanted to clarify that this was a rehabilitation of existing landscape. He was not sure whether the irrigation was on City water or not but wanted that investigated before they go to the City Commission. Mr. Swenson wanted to keep the irrigation on the system it is now on. There was discussion. Mr. Glidden did not want to revamp the irrigation system. They are changing driveway areas and landscape materials. It would not be economically feasible to change the irrigation system at this time. Mr. Cannon said they would find out wha~ it is on now, and it will be resolved at the City Commission meeting. If the irrigation is currently on the City water system, Chairman Rosenstock asked the applicant to investigate the feasibility of removing it from the City water system and putting it on a well system. Mr. Swenson replied they will do that and make that recommendation to the client. Mr. Richter moved to approve the request with the exception of the north mall access road modifications and the change in the access aisle a~ the northern main driveway, subject to staff comments. Mrs. DeLong seconded the motion· Chairman Rosenstock questioned whether the motion included the parking area. Mr. Richter answered affirmatively. Mrs. Greenhouse asked if they were approving the new parking lot, based on the motion. She was informed they were not. A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT Project Name: AgenT: Description: Adult Entertainment in Industrial Land Use Category Timothy P. Cannon Interim Planning Director City of Boynton Beach Proposed revision to Policy 1.16.1 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan which would allow adult entertainment establishments with- in the "Industrial" land use category - 49 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 To bring the Zoning Code into compliance with the Federal Judge's Order, Mr. Cannon said the City has to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow adult entertainment in the M-1 zoning district. There is now a conflict between the Zoning Code and the listed uses in the industrial land use category. Mr. Cannon informed Mrs. Greenhouse it is per- mitned under the Comprehensive Plan in Planned Industrial Districts (PIDs) but not in the M-1 zoning district. He further explained. As no one wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposed revision, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Vice Chairman Lehnertz moved to approve the proposed revision to Policy 1.16.1 of the Future Land Use ELement of the Comprehensive Plan which would allow adult entertainment establishments within the "Industrial" land use category. Mr. Collins seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. 8. Project Name: Agent: Description: Comprehensive Plan Amendmenn Timothy P. Cannon Interim Planning Director City of Bgynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Amendments pursuant to Stipulated Settlement Agreement between the City and the Florida Deparnmenk of Community Affairs (DCA) Mr. Cannon apprised the Members these were the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan the City represented to DCA it would adopt as a condition of the compliance agreement. The compliance agreement was signed by the Mayor and sent to DCA. DCA is now reviewing it, and the Ciny anticipates it will be executed by DCA within a week. Mr. Cannon explained that the Capital Improvements Element does not support some of the levels of service in the Recreational Element, so he proposed than some of those levels of service be approved at this time. After discussion about the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Cannon estimated it would be done in its entirety by May of next year. A contributing factor is Tradewinds must be in the Capital Improvemenns Element. As no one was present who wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 50 - MINUTES - PL~ANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 12, 1990 Mr. Richter moved, seconded by Mr. Collins, to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendments pursuant to Stipulated Settle- ment Agreement between the City and the Florida DCA. Motion carried 7-0. _ADJOURNMENT The meeting properly adjourned at 12:45 A. M. (Seven Tapes) - 51 - BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-171 May 2., 1990 TO:. Timothy Cannon, Interim Planning Director T~U: Don Jaeger~ Build~ng & Zoning Direoto FROM: Michael E. Haag, zoning & Site Develop~t Administrator RE: SITE PLAN - CA~IAIAGE HO~ OF CONGRESS LAKES 'UpOn' review of the above mentioned project, the following o~m~nentm m~stbe ad~ressed in order to conform with Boyn~0n Beach City codes. ~' 1. All drawings and/or documents, submitted for public record by a design professional shall show original rai~ed ~eal and signature of a Dlorida registered design professional responsible foz the drawings. 2. on the plans, show a mini~.u~ 30' setback dimension where the proposed project abuts a C 3 zoned property. 3. correct the apartment tabulation data to match the buildings ldentifie~ on the site plan and the floor plan drawings. 4. Correct the bedroom count on the apartment tabulation data to match the floor plan layout for each type of building. 5. state on the plan that the height of the handicapped parking signage is 7' from the grade to the bottom of the-sign. " 6. Show consistency in the location of parking spaces, driveways and sidewalks leading to the entrance Of each apartment on all plans submitted. 7. Show and dimension the location of two (2) parking spaces for each apartment that does not have a garage. Where the required parking space is associated with a parking lot stall, identify and show the location of the walkway leading to the entrance of the apartment. 8. Show and specify the width and location of the sidewalk that leads £o each apartment from the required parking spaces. 9. Identify the type of material, width, slope and length of the handicapped accessibility ramps that are required from the handicapped parking space to the sidewalk that leads to the apartment entrance. Identify the slope and provide spot elevations along the pathway leading to the apartment from the handicapped parking space. 10. State on the plan the typical slope of the handicapped accessible walkway that transverses the site. 11. Show on the plan a continuation of the roadway sidewalk at the south end of the project leading to and adjoining the Congress Avenue sidewalk. 12. Add to the horizontal control drawing the following dimensions: distance between buildings %11 and ~15, building %35 to the west property line, between buildings %36 and %37 and the distance from building ~37 to west property line. 13. Specifyon the plan the square foot area of-"all the tennis courts and the surface areaof the pool and spa. Show on the plan the parking space calculations to match the parking space ratio requirements as identified in Appendix ~-Zoning, Section 1t.H. for the entire site, including all amenities. PAGE 1 OF ADDENDU A Memo to= Timothy Cannon Carriage Homes Of Congres~ May 2, 1990 Page Two of Two 14. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 23. 24. Show and specify on the plan that a maximumdistance.between the vertical rails in the pool safety enoloeureis~ four inches on center (4" c.c.). Also, identif~ that the pool gates have a self-closing and self-latching gate with the same spacin9 requirements as in the vertical rails including a 4" maximum distance from pool deck to bottom:of gate. Provide spot elevations and identify the materlal and slope of the wa~way leading to the recreation building from the handicapped parking space. Show on the plan the location, width, length and elevation of the level platform that is requiFed at the entrance to the recreation b%L%lding, entrance to the pool deck and both recreation building Specify on the landscape plan the tabulatinn of the required native speCies count for each building foundation ~edge planting. Show on the plan the location of the project title signage and all other signs (all signage must comply with the Boynton Beach Sign Code). Building identification signage must be approved by the Police and Fire Departments. Identify on the plans the location of the apartment complex mailboxes. Extend the required continuous (vehicle use area) landscape screening around the east portion of the project. Show landscaping around three sides of the compactor. Provide a detailed plan view and full section view drawing of th~ dumpster enclosure, pad and service area enclosure. Identify t!rpe, size and color of the material proposed for the sides of the enclosures. Specify the size and type of all required vertical and horizontal structural material and components for the enclosure and associated pad. Identify the overall height, width and length of enclosure. Show the clear width of the dumpster opening (clear width to be measured inside of gate and post material or meet Public Works specifications for compactor dumpster enclosure). The required minimumwidth is ten feet (10'). Specify on the landscape plan the location and type of grass ground cover. A South Florida Water Management permit is required. A Lake Worth Drainage District permit is require~. State on the elevation view drawings the color(s) of all exterior surfaces of the building. Ail color(s) must match the colors identified on the color elevation drawings submitted for approval. .E. Hasg PAGE 2:!OF ADDENDUM PLANNINg DEPT. MEMORANDUM NOt THRU: FR0~ DATE: SUBJECT: Chairman and Members Planning and Zonin9 Board Timothy P. Cannon ~ Interim Planning Director Tambri J. Heyden Assistant City Planner May 4, 1990 Carriage Homes of Congress Lakes Multi-family Apartments} Site Plan Please be advised of the Planning Department,s co~enta-with respect to the above-referenced request for site pla~ apProVal. 1. Not all buildings are numbered on sheet L-1. 2. Building t~pe 1-C (building %1 and %19) is not shown on the key on sheet A1.2. The key reflects other building t~10es which are not shown anywhere on the plane, The apartment building tabulation on sheet A1.2 and A1.3 doe~ not correspond with the site plan. 4o Correct the parking calculation on page 4 of the site plan application and sheets A1.2 and A1.4. The nt~mber of parking spaces shown on sheets A1.2 and A1.3 is 1002 not 1010~ thc paving and drainage planeshow approximately 15 fewer spaces than the architectural site Plans. A total parking space requirement of 967 was calculated based on 932 spaces for the un,ts (2 for every unit], S for the tennis courts, 18 for the clubhouse and 9 for the paol. Provide the pool square footageto verify the parking space computation for this amenity. Appendix A, Section ll.H.e. 5. Since a sign program is required to be submitted for this planned unit development, a future site plan approval will b~ needed specifying numbers, types, locations and details of all signs to include colors, materials and lettering. Chapter' 21, Section 21-14(M)2. 6. Specify building colors on all blue-print elevations to correspond with the colored elevations to be submitted. Site plan application, page 5, item 14. 7. The photometric diagram illustrates onlya few areas of the parking 10t and building exteriors and no key is shown to determine which areas these are. 8. The parking spaces east of the tennis courts and the access aisle along the co~on property line between the housing parcel and the office parcel must be setback a minimum of 2-1/2 feet (4-1/2 feet where there is a 2 foot OVerhang) consistent with Chapter 7.5, Article II, Section 7.5-35(e). 9. The internal sidewalk system is not shown on the paving .and drainage plan or horizontal control plan. There appears to be conflicts with sidewalks and inlets and POssibly inadeguate room for all the sidewalk connections proposed on sheet Al.2 and A1.3. No dimensions or details are provided to verify that a minimu~ 5 foot wide sidewalk will be constructed to credit 2 foot overhangs with 16 foot parking stalls. Chapter 5, Article X, Section 5-142(1)(1). 10. PAGE I OF ADDENDUM B PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. TOt Chairman & Members Planning & Zoning Board SUBJt Carriage Homes of Congress Lakes -2- 11. 12. 13. 14. The typi=al stall detail shows 16 foot stalls with a 2 foot overhang onto grassedareas. Most of the parking is designed to overhang onto sidewalks. Provide a typical stall detail for this overhang design. Site plan application, page 6, item The paving and drainage plan, horizontal control drawings and site ~lan (sheets A1.2 and A1.3) do not correspond with respect to numbe~ of parking spaces and ~a~Out and location of parking spaces in the following areas. a) between buildings 4 & 5 b) between buildings 2 & 5 c) east side of building 6 d) west Side of building 8 e) south Side of building 5 f) west side of building 13 g) east side of building 17 h) between buildings 22 and 26 i) between buildings 21 and 27 J) between buildings 28 and 31 k) West side of building 35 1) around building 38 m) south side of building 34 n) west side of building 32 Since few dimensions were ~rovided on the paving and drainage plans to verify minimum distances, the areas circled on the attached exhibit were noted as not meeting the parking lot regulations with respect to layout and design. In several of the areas noted, aisles are not wide enough for parking spaces to back out onto them and probably will result in a loss 'of a few parking spaces. A marked-up copy of the horizontal control drawing, delineating the minimum dimensions required for the areas noted, is available in thePlanning Department for the applicant. Chapter 5, Article X, Section 5-142(i)[1). On the horizontal control sheet, building #34 is mislabeled as #33. The list of recreation ame~ities itemized on sheet A1.2 and A1.3 does not specify size of play area, size of family picnic area, or details of the picnic area. Appendix C, Article IX, Section 8F(f) states the minimum size requirements for the play area, picnic area, gems courts and swimming pool. 16. 17. 18. No information is provided that indicates how efficient mail delivery for 466 units will be handled. The setback labeled as 20 feet on sheet A1.2 must be 30 feet. Appondix B, Section 9.A. ~ ~ . The use of shared recreational facilities between the P~D and the C-3 zoned office parcel/tennis resort site must be clarified. The site plan for the office parcel has expired, however should a new site plan be submitted, an agreement will be required. This agreement must ensure that the tennis courts will be open to the apartment residents since this amenity is being counted as one of the 5 recreational items required to receive 1/2 credit toward the recreation impact fee. Appendix C, Article IX, Section PAGE 2 OF ADDENDUM B PLANNING DEPT. MBMOI~ANDUM NO. TO~ Chai~an & Members Planning & Zoning Board SUBJ= Carriage Homes of Congress Lakes -3- 19. If the office parcel is not platted at the time of final sign-off, including a platted access easement to serve the rental project, a recorded easement which runs to the City and the apartment project will be required to ensure temporary access until platting occurs. This document shall be reviewedand approved by the City's legal department in order to obtain sign-off. (Condition of s~bdivision variance granted May 7, 1985.) 20. The right-of-way dedication for N.W. 22nd Avenue has not been reflected on the sit~.plan. Palra Beach Coumty ThoroUghfare Right-of-Way Protection Map end Chapter 19, Article II, section 19-17. 21. The applicant should consider numbering and designating parking apaces for units, since some of the parkiUgspace locations for units are on the opposite side of building. 22. The two parking spaces at the southwest corner of building 32 obstruct one another. One should be eliminated,or redesigned to meet Chapter 5, Article X, Section 5-142(i}(2). - ' 23. The driveways on the east sides of the two unit II type .-- buildings (~6 and #33) are labeled as on sheets A1.2 and Al.3. C~90-120 PAGE 3 OF FROH: DATR: SUB3ECT: IIIRHORANDUIt. Ut. Ill&les #90 288 Timothy Cannon Interim Planning Director Director of Utllities~// Hay 2, 1990 TRB Review - Carriage Hemes of Rssubml%tal We can approve this project, subject to the 1. Add a second valve on all hydrant lines whenever the hydrant is greater than 20 feet from the main line near U~I~S #2, Il, 14, 17, 26, 30 and 36. 2. Indicate locations of water meters on site plans, Show water meter units #8, 13, 23 and 36. 3. Only those tree species approved by the Utility Department may he placed in utility easements. 4. New water mains shall be cleaned with a soft-sided swab, prior to te~ting', two passes. Please affix this nots to the 5. Reduced pressure backflow preventers will be required on the water service. Indicate location, model and size. We recommend dual units in parallel so service is not inter- rupted during testing, Backflow preventer on Clubhouse and compactor/fountain services bnly. private sanitary sewer services. Add cleanouts units #29 and Clubhouse. Show sewer services units #13 and 23. Work to be in accordance with City of Boynton Beach Details and Criteria sheets. Separation of 10' recommended on water and sewer service line where possible. Hhere storm sewer or water line trench crosses under sani- tary sewer, install 20' DIP across trench, 10. Add 2 gate valves near unit #5. .'ii. Hove gate valve near unit #36 out of lbop. 12. Add sample points near unit #7 and unit #32. 13, Water system note #3: short body .fitti~gs not &llo~ed, 14, Sewer note #3: SDR 35 allo~ed in services only. 15, Sheet 19/19 force main may conflict wi&bp reposed drainage. Show utilities on drawing. Contact Utility Department for location, if necessary. PAGE 10.F A OENDUM C C&rciage Homes of Congress I~akes Page 2 /~y 2, 1990 At this time, this department cannot assure the% reserve potable Water capacity exists to service this project. We request that a phasing plan bs submitted bF the developer, indicating that Phase I of the project will be line in~ conJunct$on with the Bast Water Treatment Plant completion date of June $, $995. The current pumps in Llf~. Station 719 ace r&ted as follows: 250 gpm ~ 80' ~H To help us evaluate whether an upgrade of the station Is necessary at thSe time we request that the project engineer fucnlsh us with expected sewage flow £ro~ all undeveloped parcels which will drain to the lift ~tation. If an u~g~ade le necessary, it will be ~unded by the developer o~ this · dmt bc: ~lichael i~azun&s PAGE 2 OF DE[ DUM C PLANNING DEPT. MEMO~3~NDUM NO. "'90-147 ( AGENDA MEMORANDUM) TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: Ji Scott Miller, City Manager Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Planning Director James J. Golden, Senior City Planner ~May 17, 1990 SUBJECT: Bethesda Memorial Hospital - Master Plan Modification File No. 492 Charles B. Koval, Esquire, agent for Bethesda Memorial Hospital. Inc., has requested a modification to the previously approved mas~er plan for the Bethesda Memorial Hospital Planned Unit Development. The modification requested is to eliminate a proposed 25,000 square foot office building and to raze two former residences to allow for the construction of a new day care center, as outlined in the attached correspondence in Exhibit "A". The approved list of permitted uses for the Bethesda Memorial Hospital Planned Unit Development includes a day care center limited to children of hospital employees. The procedure for approving master plan modifications in planned uni~ developments is twofold. First, the City Commission must make a determination as to whether or not the changes requested are substantial in nature. A determination of substantial change on the part of the City Commission, which has sole discretion in this matter, would require a new application for PUD. On the other hand, a determination of no substantial change allows the forwarding of the request to the Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board then may approve the request. This procedure appears in Appendix B, Section 12 of the Code of Ordinances. With respect to the change requested by Mr. Koval, the Technical Review Board (TRB) met on Thursday, May 17, 1990, to review the plans and documents submitted, and they offer for your considera- tion, a recommendation that the City Commission make a finding of no substantial change for the requested modification, and that the Planning and Zoning Board approve this request as submitted. JJG:f A:PM9( ~AMES,' J. GOLDEN ADDENDUM D THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90~160~ Chairman & Members Planning & Zoning Board Timothy P. Cannon ~C Interim Planning Director' James J. Golden Senior City Planner May 29, 199~ Matthews Office Building File No. 453 Section 5-145(c)(4) of the Code of Ordinances requires that when a variance to Section 5, Article X, Parking Lots is requested, the Technical Review Board must forward to the Planning and Zoning Board s recommendation, and that the recommendation forwarded is to be made part of the public hearing proceedings. To that end, this memo is forwarded, consistent with 5-145(c)(4). Dale Construction Corporation, agent for Shirley Matthews, property owner, has requested a variance to Sections 5-142(h}(1) "Driveways" and 5-142(i)(1) "Dimensional Requirements" of Article X-Parking Lots. Section 5~142(h)(1) requires that "parking lot driveway§ shall be designed to provide a minimum width of twelve (12) feet for one-way drives and twenty (20) feet for two-way drives at the right-of-way line". The applicant is req~lesting relief from the requirement to provide a 12 foot wide driveway on the east side of the building and is proposing that a driveway with a width of 10 feet, 8 inches be provided. Section 5-142(i)(1) requires that "parking lots shall be designed to meet or exceed the dimensional requirements for stalls, driveways and access aisles as provided for in City standards". These standards were adopted in resolution form by the City Commission. The standard that the applicant is requesting relief from is the requirement to provide a 27 foot wide access aisle for ninety degree parking. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to be allowed to Provide a 24.5 foot wide access aisle at the rear of the building, a 16.5 foot wide access aisle on the west side of the building, and a 19.6 foot wide access aisle on the east side of the building. The existing office building is located on the south side of S.E. 23rd AvenUe, between South Seacrest Boulevard and S.E. 1st Street. For an explanation of the code requirement, the nature of the variance requested and the variance justification, please refer to the attached Notice of Public Hearing and application. On Tuesday, June 5, 1990, the Technical Review Board (TRB) met to review the plans and documents submitted and to formulate a recommendation with regard tq the variance requested.. After review and discussion, the TRB recommended that the variance requests be approved as submitted. The basis for this recommendation is as follows: There is currently no parking lot to serve this building and vehicles park in a haphazard manner in front of the building and along S.E. 23rd Avenue. The proposed parking lot will significantly reduce the site hazards and unsightliness associated with the existing parking situation. Due to the existing constraints imposed by the small lot size, the shape of the existing building footprint, and the right-of-way dedication (15 feet) required for Page 1 of ADDENDUME PLANNING DEPT. MEMOBANDUM NO. 9! Chairman & Members, planning & Zoning May 29, 1990 Page 2 S.E. 23rd Avenue, the subject variances are necessary for a parking lot to be constructed on the site Which meets the overall intent of the ordinance. Owing to the special conditions peculiar to the site (see above), the applicant would experience an unnecessary hardship if deprived of the right to construct a parking lot, JJG:frb A:PM90-160 Page 2 of ADDENDUM E FORM 8B MEMORANDUM OF VOTING CONFLICT FOR COUNTY, MUNICIPAL, AND OTHER LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICE; S LAST NAME--FIRST NAME--MIDDLE NAME NAME OF BOARD~ COUNCIL, COMMISSION, AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE CITY COUNTY THE BOARD, COUNCIL, COMM/~SION. AUTHORITY, OR COMMITTEE ON WHICH I SERVE tS A UNIT OF: ~crtY ~ ~ COUNTY i OTHER LOCAL AGENCY NAME OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISION: MY POSITION IS: ~ ELECTIVE ~ APPOINTIVE WHO MUST FILE FORM 8B This form is fca- use by any person serving at the county, city, or other local level of government on an appointed or elected board, ~.ouncil, eom.mission, authority, or committee It applies equally to members of advisory and non-ad~,isory bodies who are presented 7with a votingconflict of- interest under Section 112,3143 Florida Statutes. The. requirements of this law are mandatory, although the use of this particular form Is not required by law, you are encouraged tO use it in making the disclosure required by law. Your responsibilities under the law when faced with a measure in which you have a conflict of interest will vary greatly depending on whether yoU ho}d an elective or appointive position. FOr this reason, please pay close attention to the instructions on this form before completing the reverse side and filing the form. INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 'it2.3143, FLORIDA STATUTES ELECTED Ol4 idERs.: A person holding elective county, munic pal, or other loca public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which inures ~to his special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited from knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the special gain of a principal (other than a government a~ency) by whom he is retained. In either case, you should disclose the conflict: PRIOR TO THE VOTE BEING TAKEN by publicly stating to the assembly the nature of your interest in the measure on which you are abstaining from voting; and WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE VOTE OCCURS by completing and filing this form With the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. APPOINTED OFFICERS: A person holding appointive county, municipal, or other local public office MUST ABSTAIN from voting on a measure which tis special private gain. Each local officer also is prohibited [rom knowingly voting on a measure which inures to the ;pecial gain of a prmcipal (other than a government agency) by whom he is retained. ~, person holding an appointive local office otherwise may participate in a matter in which he has a conflict ofimerest, but must Jisclose the nature of the conflict before making an5' attempt to influence the decision by omi or written communication, whether made by the officer or at his direction. IF YOU INTEND TO MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE THE DECISION PRIOR TO THE MEETING AT WHICH .F~-THE VOTE ~]L L BE TAKEN: · , You should complete and file this form (before making any attempt to influence the decision) with the person responsible for i recording, the minutes of the meeting, who will incorporate the form in the m nutes. ' . · A copy of the form should be provided immediately to lite other members of the agency. - The form should be read publicly at the meeting prior to consideration of the matter in which you have a conflict of interest. Vt,RXl ,m .}-~ g. DDEZIDLIt4 F MEET1N~: '~[! *~-You should disclose orally the nature of your conflict in the measure before participating. -~[ *:Xou should complete the form and file it within 15 days after the vote occurs with the person responsible for recording the minutEr ,:of~the'mecting, who should incorporate the form in the minutes. DISCLOSURE OY LOCAl. Ot:FICER'$ INTERr:ST ~I, -~/~-4(~q eY'~ , hereby disclose that on % ~ ~ / ~ , 19 ~0 :{a) .'A m~asure came or will come before my agency which, (check one) ' i~nured to my special private gain; or ~qinured to the special gain of The measure before my agency and the nature of my interest in the measure is as follows: Date Fired Signature !1 gSq~O1'ICE: UNDER PROVISIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES §112.317 (1985), A FAILURE TO MAKE ANY REQUIRED- i[ .~DI. SCI~OSURE CONSTITUTES GROUNDS FOR AND MAY BE PUNISHED BY ONE ~R MORE OF THE FOLLOWING: ~ I.M~ACHIvlENT, REMOVAL OR SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, DEMOTION, REDUCTION IN ] SAI~RY, REPRIMAND, OR A CIVIL PENALTY NOT TO EXCEED $5,000. EXHIBIT "A" ~ I,,OTS- C TttRU E, LES5 STATE ROAD RIGHT OF ~,'AY, BI.,OCK'"~I LOTS C THRU LESS STATE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, BLOCK 2, L~TS A ~H~RUiI~, BLOCI~ 28 AND LOTS A THRU E, BLOCK 29, AS RECORDED IN l ALM BI:ACH FARMS COMPANY PLAT NO. $, IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 73 Ol: TIlE PUBLIC R.F~CORDS OF PALM B~ACH COUNTY~ ~L~ORIDA. ]'~'~H~-~V[]'H THAT PART OF THE 30' ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AS SI'~ ~:'A~OV~ SAID PLAT, I3~JNDED ~ THE ~RTH BY THE 5~Tt't RIGHT- OF-~VAY LINE O~ BOYN'I'~ B~ACH BLVI~. AND B~NDED ~ THE EAST BY LOT5 C, D, ~, 13L~l( ~, AND LOTS A, B, C, D~ E, BL~ 29 OF At30~E 5~ID PLAT A~3 BOUNDED ~ THE WEST I~Y LOTS C:~ D~ E~ ~, AND'LOTS A B, ~ D, E, BL~. 28 OF ABOVE SAID PA~ BEACH t:AI~5 C~4PANY PLAT ~3. ~, AND 13~INDED ~ TI't~ SOU~'I BY THE ~5T~RLY ~XTENSJ~ OF THE ~R3H LINE O1: TRACT "G" AS RECORDED IN ST~ID'tAVI~N PLAT ~. i, PLAT 13~K ~ PAGE5 I-~ OF THE PL~LIC RECORDS O1: PALM 131~AC:H C~.INTY, I:LOR IDA. ADDENDUM G TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PLA/~NING DEPT. MEMOP3%NDUM NO. 9f Chairman & Members Planning & Zoning Board Timothy p. Cannon Interim Planning Director James J. Golden Senior City Planner June 7, 1990 Requests for Annexation, Future Land Use Element Amendment, Rezcning and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Submitted by Kilday & ~ssociates for Michael A. $chroeder, Trustee (Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD) - File No. 493 Sun~nary~ Kieran J. Kilday, agent for Michael A-~ Sohroeder, Trustee, is requesting that a 14.76 acre parcel be annexed into the City, rezoned from AR (Aqrioultural Residential) in Palm Beach County to a PCD (Planned Cor~mereial Development) and that the Future Land Use Plan designation for this parcel be amended from "Residential 8 (units per acre)" in Palm Beach County to "Local Retail commercial" in the City. In addition, the applicant has submitted an application for' a Text A~end~ent to Area 7.k. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Suppor~ Documents, which currently reads as follows: 7.k. Unincorporated Parcels on South Side of Boynton Beach Blvd. These parcels constitute an unincorporated pocket which should be annexed. The first row of lots lying to the west of the present city limits, having an east-west dimension of approximately 300 feet should be placed in the General Commercial land use category and C-4 zoning district. These parcels should be req~/ired to dedicate right-of-way and construct the adjacent street consistent with the requirements that were placed on the U.S. Post Office. The commercial parcels should be developed so as to be compatible with the future residential use of the property which lies to the west. Those parcels which lie further west should be placed in the High Density Residential land use category. Commercial development on this parcel should not be permitted since a single-family ~ubdivision lies immediately to the west and adequate commercial property exists elsewhere in the vicinity. Furthermore, building heights on this parcel should be limited to 2 stories (25 feet] within 150 feet and 3 stories within 400 feet of these single- family lots. The amendment to Area 7.k. would be necessary to allow for the issuance of a Development Order, pursuant to Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, s~nce the proposed development is not - consistent wi~h this section of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The subject parcel occupies 656 feet of frontage on West Boynton Beach Boulevard, between the U.S. Post Office and the Stonehaven PUD, a/k/a Banyan Creek (see attached location map in Exhibit "A"). Currently, the property is heavily vegetated and is Page 1 of ADD~DUMH PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning June 7, 1990 Page 2 occupied by substantial muck deposits. The property is also occupied by an existing single-family residenee. The proposed use of this property, if rezoned, would be to develop it for a 120,000 square foot shopping center, including two outparcels (see attached master plan in Exhibit "B"). Surroundinq Land Use .and Zoning (see attached loeation map ~n blt?'A"): . Abuttinu the subject parcel to the north is a 120 wade raght-of-way for West Bo!rnton Beach Boulevard. Abutting ~he subject parcel to the east is the Boy~ton ~eaeh Post office zoned PU (Public Usage), a self storage and vehicle storage facility zoned LI (Light Industrial) in Palm Beach County, and a vacant parcel approximately one acre in size, zoned AR, which lies south of the parcel zoned LI. Abutting the subject parcel to the south is Congress Middle School, zoned PU, and the Stonehaven Planned Unit Development, which consists of single-familF zero lot line detached units (a/k/a Banyan Creek). Abutting the subject parcel to the west is Banyan Creek Circle, a local street within the Stonehaven Planned Unit Development. Single-fam~iY z~ro lot line units front on the west side of Banyan Creek Circle across from the subject parcel. Proposed Rezoninq (see master plan in ~wh~hit B,,~: ~ ...... ApPendix A, Z~ninq, the purpose of t zoning district "is .... he PCD commercialdevelopments that will better satisfy current demands for com~eroia'lly zoned lands by encouraging development which will refle~t c~anges in the concepts and technology of land development and relate the development of land to the specific site, to conserve natural amenities and to allow for the mitigation of negative impacts which result from development-, land The proposed development is a 120,000 square foot retail shopping center which includes two outparcels: a finaneial institution and a restaurant. A ten foot wide greenbelt is provided along West Bo~nton Beach Boulevard, the eastern property boundary and a portion of the southeast property boundary where the subject parcel abuts non-residential zoning categories. A twenty-five foot wide greenbelt is provided along the southwest and west property boundaries where the subject parcel abuts the Stonehaven PUD. The proposed perimeter greenbelt conforms to the requirements of the PCD zoning district regulations. Access as provided by two driveways o~to west Boynton Beach Boulevard. Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Map and Text: The property in question is currently shown on the Future Land Use' Element for the Reserve Annexation Area as "High Density Residential,,, so an amendmen~ to the Future Land Use Element to "Local Retail Commercial" as requested by the applicant, would be necessary. In addition, Area 7.k. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents contains the following language: 7.k. Unincorporated Parcels on South Side of Bo~n Beach Blvd. These parcels constitute an unincorporated pocket which should be annexed. The first row of lots lying to the west of the present City limits, having an east-west dimension Page 2 of ADDENDUM H PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zonin, June 7, 1990 Page 3 of approximately 300 feet should be placed in the General Commercial land use category and C-4 zoning district. These parcels should be required to dedicate right-of-way and construct the adjacent street consistent with the rgquirements that were placed on the U,S. Post Office. The commercial parcels should be developed so as to be compatible with the future residential use of the property whichlies to the west. Those parcels which lie further west should be placed in the High Density Residential land u~e category. 'Commercial development on this parcel should not be permitted Since a single-family subdivision lies immediately to.the west and adequate commercial property exmsts elsewhere in the vicinity. Furthermore, building heights onthis parcel should be limited to 2 stories (25 feet) within 150 f~et and 3 stories within 400 feet of 'these single- family lots. The applicant has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan .Text Amendment to Area 7.k. above. The proposed...amendment reads as follows: Unincorporated Parcels on South Side of Bolrnton Beach Blvd. These parcels constitute an unincorporated pocket which should be annexed. The first row of lots lying to the west of the present City limits, having an east-west dimension of approximately 300 feet should be placed in the General Commercial land use eategory and C-4 zoning district. These parcels should be required to dedicate right-of-way and construct the adjacent street consistent with the requirements that were placed on the U.S. Post Office. The commercial parcels should be developed so as to be compatible wikh the future residential use of the property which lies to the west. -~hese Pa~ee~s-wh~eh-~e-~the~-west-she~d-be ~aeed-~-the-H~h-Bees~-Res~den~a~-~an~ fam~y-su~v~s~en-~es-~mmed~eee~y-te-~he-wes~ en~-ade~ua~-eemme~a~-9~e~e~y-e~s~s-e~se_ whe~e~-~he-~e~e~ky= The parcels which lie further to the west may be utilized for districts and the establishment of adequate buffe~s adjacent to a single family sub- division which lies immediately to the west of these parcels. Furthermore, building heights on this parcel should be limited to 2 stories (25 feet) within 150 feet and 3 stories within 400 feet of these single- family lots. Page 3 of ADDENDL~ H PLANNING DE~T. MEMORANDUM NO. TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning June 7, 1990 Page 4 An amendment to Area 7.k. would be nature of the developmenu. Procedure: These applications for annexation, amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive P~an, text amendment, and rezoning are being processed consistent with State Statutes and Bo!rnton Beach Codes, Ordinances and follows: as F.S. 163.3161: Local Government Comprehensiwe~lanning and Land Development Regulation Act. F.S. 166.041: Procedures for Adop Resolutions. and 3. F.S. 171.011: Municipal Annexation and Contraction Act. 4. Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Appendix ~, Section 3A5(e): Boundary and Zoning. · 5. Boynton Beach Ordinance #79-24. · · 6. Boynton Beach Resolution #76-X: Procedures forA~nexation. 7. Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Section 9.C: Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezonings. 8. Boynton Beach Ordinance a89-38:1989 Comprehensive Plan. These regulations have been listed for informational purposes. Paraphrasing, these regulations require newspaper advertisements, public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission, review by the Department of Community Affairs, and Commission adoption of ordinances to annex, amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element/Text, and rezone. These procedures take approximately 8 to 9 months to complete. Planned Commercial Development Standards: There are three standards listed in the PCD regulations which affect the location and ability to serve from a planning perspective. These three standards are: Relation to Major Transportation F~l~tie~ Standard number one ~uggests that PCDs should be located where access to major roadways is afforded and where traffic levels generated in residential areas will be acceptable. The proposed PCD does in fact meet this criteria, Roadway Improvements and Utility Extensions Standard number two suggests that the applicant shall be responsible for constructing and dedicating all infrastructure necessary to serve the site, including the dedication of additional rights-of-way and the maintenance of roadway capacity when applicable. It can be assumed that the applicant will construct all necessary water and sewer mains which are needed to serve the site. In addition, the applicant is proposing to construct separate left, through, and right turn lanes for the driveway at the intersection of West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Winchester Page 4 of ADDENDUMH PLANNING DEPT. TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & June 7, 199.0 Page 5 3. The Physical Character of the Site Standard number three is concerned with the environmental aspects of the site. The geotechnical report submitted by the applicant indicates that there is a s~bstantial quantity of peat and muck on the property, with a depth of up to 16 inches, which must be removed and replac~d with compact fill. Concerning vegetation, the site is primarily occupied by dense exotics and open grass area. HoWever, t~ere is an area in the northwest corner of the site which contains some Royal Palms, Queen P~tms, Citrus, Avocado and Orchid Trees, which must be preserve~, relocated, or replaced, in conformance with the requirements of the Tree Preservation Code. Taking into account the above, it can be reported that the site is appropriate for the suggested development from an environmental point of view. Economic Standards: In connection with the Planned Commercial District Regulations, two types of economic analyses are required: A market s~udy and employment projections. The market study concludes that the proposed development is economically feasibl~ {see Exhibit "C")% The employment projectionsindicate that approximately 290 employees will be needed for.the proposed shopping center. Issues/Discussion: Section 9.c.7 of Appendix A, Zoning, of the Code o~ Ordinances, requires the evaluation of plan amendment/re~oning requests against criteria related to the impacts which would result from the approval of such requests. These criteria and an evaluation of the impacts which would result from the proposed development are as follows: a. Whether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. The Planning Department shall also recommend limitations or require- ments Which would have to be imposed on subsequent development of the property, in order to comply with policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed land use amendment/rezoning would not be consistent with Area 7.k. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents. However, the applicant has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Area 7.k. to amend the existing language to accommodate the proposed development, as outlined in a previous section of this memorandum entitled "Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Map and Text". The Discussion of Supply and Demand for Commercial Land in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents (Volume No. 1) indicates that there may be up to 198 acres of excess commercial land at build-out. However~ this figure may be reduced to a surplus of only 30 acres when certain adjustments are taken into consideration. Thus, it was concluded that the supply of commercial land in the Boynton Beach market area will match the demand. In addition, this section of the Plan also states the following: "The Future Land Use Plan which is proposed for the City and areas to be annexed by the city will acco~odate all of anticipated demand for commercial land through build-out. Therefore, the City should not change the land use to Page 5 of ADDENDUM H PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning June 7, 1990 Page 6 commercial categories, beyond that shown on the proposed Future Land Use Plan, except for miner boundary adjustments, small infill parcels, or co~nercial uses of ~ highly specialized nature, which have special locational or site requirements, and therefore : be easily (page 40) Policy 1.19.6 of the Comprehensive Plan stat~s: to Plan adoption, do not allow commercial ~ ~re~ ~ ~ greater than th~ demand which has been projected, unles~ = can be demonstrated that a particular property is unsuitable for other uses, ora geographic need exists which cannot be fulfilled by existing commercially-zoned property, or no other suitable property for a commercial use exists for which a need can be demonstrated, and the commercial use would comply with all other applicable comprehensive plan policies". The proposed rezoning would notbe consistent with this policy. Concerning the location ~f commercial land, thisseotion of the Plan states the following: "Commercial land uses west of Interstate 95 are dominated by -th? regional mall, and its satellite stores and offices. Neighborhood shopping centers and office buildings are located in the vicinity of most major intersections. The City should continue its policy of encouraging commercial uses to be located at intersections, and discouraging strip commercial development, due to the aesthetic and traffic safety problems that strip development creates. Further- more, allowing additional commercial land use in the vic~inity of the Boynton Beach Mall would be likely to cause traffic levels on roads in the vicinity to fall below established levels of service. Commercial development beyond that which is shown on the proposed',?~and use plan shOUld be permitted only if the City, or the applicant for development applies for a lower level of service, by seeking to have properties in the vicinity approved as a regional activity center and an Areawide Impact." (pp. 40-41) In addition to the above, there will be a further discussion concerning consistency with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies in subsequent sections of this memorandum. At the end of this memorandum, in the section entitled, "Project Approval", the Planning Department shall recommend limitations and requirements which should be imposed on subsequent develop- ment of the property, if this request is approved, in order to comply with policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan~ Concerning consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan, the Palm Beach County Planning Division has been notified of the proposed annexation. However, comments have not been received as of this date. b. Whether the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby distnicts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare. Page 6 of ADDENDUM PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. TO: Chairman ~ Members, Planning & Zoning June 7, 1990 Page7 AS outlined in Area 7.k.t of the Comprehensive Land Use Element Support Documents, "Commercial this parcel should not be permitted, since a lies immediately to the west and property exists elsewhere in the vicinity". In addition, the section of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Ele~.ent Support Documents that discusses, the location of commercial land states the following with respect to further commercial in the vicinity of the Boynton Beach Mall: "The City should continue its policy of encouraging commercial uses to be located at intersections,1 and discouraging strip commercial development,' due to the aesthetic and traffic safety problems that strip development creates. Furthermore, allowing additional commercial land use in the vicinity of the Boynton Beach Mall would be likely to cause traffic levels on roads in the vicinity to fall below established levels of service. Commercial development beyond that which is shown on the proposed land use plan should be permitted only if the City, or the applicant for development applies for a lower level of seryice, by seeking to have properties in the vicinity approved as a regional activity center and an Areawide Development of Regional Impact". (pp 40-41) With respect to the above, the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern and would arguably constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare. c. Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable. There has been no significant change in conditions in the vicinity of this property since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan which would make the proposed rezoning desirable. d. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities. The proposed rezoning would be compatible with water and sewer systems. Pursuant to the Traffic Impact Review prepared by Walter H. Keller, Jr., Inc., dated May 29, 1990, a revised traffic impact analysis should be submit=ed which includes a revised analysis based on,all assured construction projects, an appropriate assignment to Lawrence Road and Military Trail; an analysis of Mall Road (Winchester Park Boulevard) and revised peak hour turning movements on Figure 5. The applicant's analysis should also address the finding by the Palm Beach County Engineering Department (see letter dated June 5, 1990) that Boynton Beach Boulevard from Military Trail to E1 Clair Ranch Road would be over capacity. With regard to the County Engineer's comment that the link of Boynton Beach Boulevard from Old Boynton Road to 1-95 will be over capacity, it should be noted that this link will be improved by Palm Beach Coun=y, however, this link will still be over capacity according to the findings in Mr. Keller's report. In addition, the proposed rezoning will consume road capacity that will be needed to allow for commercial development of other parcels in this area of the City which are designated for commercial land use on the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as outlined in the attached supplement dated June 6, 1990, from Walter Keller in Exhibit "D". Page 7 of ADDenDUM H PLANNING DEPT. F/EMOPJ%NDUM NO. 90-157 TO: ~halr~_an & Members, Planning & Zoning Boardi~ ~une l, 1990 Page 8 . Consistent with various policies contained withfn~the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, a 'copy of the developer's traffic impact analysis was submitted to Palm Beach County for courtesy review and comment. Among other issues, the County does not consider this applica~on to have been complete prior =o Februar~ 1, 1990, the adoptio~ date of the Municipal Implementation Ordinance (see copy of correspondence dated June 5, 1990 from th Engineer in Exhibit "D"), the County e. ~ether the proposed rezoning would be compat/ble with the current and future use of ad3acent and nearby properties, or would affect the property values of adjacent and nearby properties. As outlined in Policy 1.17.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, th~ language for Area 7.k., and the discussion coD~erning supply, demand and location of con%mercial property in the Future Land Use Element Support Documents, the proposed rezoning would not be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties. Since the proposed development would hav~ a negative impact on property values in the Stoneha~en PUD (a/k/a Banyan Creed), .due to the activities that take place at the rear of a shopping center. Typical characteristics of shopping centers that would be incompatible with nearby residential uses include noise from trucks, noise from loading and unloading activities, noise due to unloading of dumpsters and removal of compac=ors, noise from mechanical equipment, odors from dumpsters (which can be detected up =o 200 feet away), glare from parking lot lighting, trash and litter accumulation, and the unpleasa/%t aesthetics that are typical for the rear of a shopping center. f. Whether the property is physically and economically developable under the existing zoning. Under the existing Agricultural-Residential Zoning in Palm Beach County, the property could he utilized for a variety of agricultural or conservation purposes. Single-family dwellings are permitted on a minimum lot area of 5 acres. If annexed and developed as a multi-family residential subdivisIon or planned unit development, consistent with the current "High Density Residential" land use designation in the City, the property could be developed for a maximu~ cf 159 dwelling units. Concerning whether the property ~s economically developable Under the City's "High Density Residential,, land use designation, the applicant has not submitted any documentation that indicates that the property could not be developed economically for 159 multi-family dwelling units. Therefore, it is assumed that the residentialPr°perty coulddevelopment.be economically developed for a multi-family 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. Based on the discussion in item "a" concerning Area 7.k. and the analysis of Supply, demand, and location of commercial land uses in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Su or Documents, it i.s arguable that the proposedrezoning is not P~ scale which 1s reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole. Furthermore, approval of additional retail development in this area of the City may limit and compete with redevelopment in the Central Business District along U.S. 1, and along Boynton Beach Boulevard east of 1-95. Page 8 of ADDENDUM TO: PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO~ Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning June 7, 1990 ~%~ Page 9 h. Whether there are adequate for the proposed use, in dis already allowed. As outlined in the discussion of supply land in the Future Land Use Element the Comprehensive Plan, "the Future Land for the City and areas to be annexed by the City all of t~e anticipated demand for commercial~ through build-out". This paragraph of the Plan further "the City ~hould not change the land use to beyond that which is shown on the proposed Land Use Plan, except for minor boundary adjustments, small i or commercial uses of a highly specialized have special locationat or site requirements, and ~ cannot be easily accommodated on already designated areas". This discussion is formalized in Policy .6 of the Comprehensive Plan. A further detailed analysis of the supply and demand of commercial land is Contained within th~ Future Land Use Eiement Support DocUments (Volume No. 1) of the ~mprehensive Co~olusions/Recommendations: The Planning Department: ~e¢ommends that'the requests for Future Land Use Element Amen.dmen~, Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment s~bmitte~iby Kieran J. Kilday for Michael A. Schroeder, Trustee, be!; denied. This recommendation is based on the following summary~ Of~ findings contained within the staff report: ' ~" 1. The proposed land use element amendment/rezoning-would not be consistent with the policy for Area 7.k.' of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land DocUments; 2. The Discussion of Supply and Demand for commercial Land in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents indicates that there may be anywhere from 30 to 198 acres of excess commercial land at build-out. Thus, the supply is expected to match the demand. This section of the Plan and Policy 1.t9.6 also state that the F~ture Land Use Plan for the City and areas to be annexed by the City will accommodate all of the anticipated demand for commercial land through build-out and, therefore, the City should not further change the land use to commercial categories, except for minor boundary adjustments; 3. The discussion for the Location of Commeroiat'Land in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support DocUmen=s states that further strip commercial development should not be allowed in this area of the City due to the aesthetic and traffic safety problems that are created and that traffic levels on roads in the vicinity would likely fall below established levels of service. This section of the Plan further states that commercial development beyond that which is shown on the proposed land use plan should be permitted only if the City, or the applicant for development applies for a lower level of service, by seeking ~o have properties in the vicinity approved as a regional activity center and an Areawide Development of Regional Impact; 4. The proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern and would arguably constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with protection of the publicwetfare; Page 9 ~ PLANNING DEPT. Chairman & Members, Planning & June 7, 1990 Page 10 5o 10. 11. There has been no significant change vicinity of this property since Comprehensive Plan which would desirable; in the of the Pursuant to the Traffic Impact Review preparedby Walter H. Keller, Jr., inc., dated May 29, 1990, ? revised traffic impact analysis should b~ submitted which includes a revised analysis based on all assured construction projects, ~n appropriate assignment to Lawrence Road and Military Trail; an analysis o~ Mall Road (Winchester Park Bo~ievard) and revised peak nour turning movements on Figure 5. The applicant's analysis should also address the finding by the Paim Beach County Engineering Department (see letter dated June 5, i990) that ~oynton Beach Boulevard from Military Trail to E1 Clair Ranch Road would be over capacity. With regard tO the County Engineer's comment that the link of Boynton Beach Boulevard from Old Boynton Road to I~95 will be over capacity, it should be noted that this link will ~ improved by Palm Beach County, however., this lin~-will still be over c~pacity according to the finding~ in Mr~ Keller's report. In addition, the proposed rezoning will consume ro~d capacity that will be needed to allow for commercial ~evelopment of other parcels in this area of the city which are designated for commercial land use on the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan; The proposed rezoning would not be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, as outlined in Policy 1.17.1 of the Comprehensive Plan, the language for Area 7.k, and the discussion concerning supply, demand, and location of commercial property in the Future Land Use Element Support Documents. The property is physically developable under the City's curren= High Density Residential land use designation for 159 dwelling units, and the applicant has not furnished documentation that this land use would constitute an economic hardship; It is arguable that the proposed rezoning is not of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of neighborhood and the City as a whole; the Approval of additional retail development in this area of the City may limit and compete with prospects for redevelopment in the Central Business Distrlct, along U.S. 1, and along Boynton Beach Boulevard east of 1-95; and As outlined in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents and formalized in Policy 1.19.6 of the Comprehensive Plan, there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City for the proposed use, as well as in the City's Reserve Annexation Area. PROJECT APPROVAL If it is the desire of the Planning and Zoning Board to recon%~end approval or the City Commission to approve these requests, it is recommended that approval be contingen= upon the following: 1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Text A~endment to Area 7.k. as modified below: Page 10 of PLANNING DEPT. TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning June 7, 1990 Page tl 7.k. Unincorporated Parcels on South Side of Boynton Beach Boulevard. These parcels constitute an unincorporated pocket which should be annexed. The first row of lots lying to the west of the present City limits, having an east-west dimension of approximately 300 feet should he placed in the General Commercial land use category and C-4 zoning district. These parcels should be required to dedicate right-of-way and construct the adjacent street consistent with the requirements that were placed on the U.S. Post Office. Those parcels which lie further west should be placed in the Local Retail Commercial land use category and Should bedeveloped as a Planned Commercial Development (PCD). The following restrictions should be placed on the ~ev~lopment of the property ~o minimize adverse impacts on the adjacent single-family subdivision: Building heights should be limited i=o one (maximum 25 feet). ~ ~ story Pole-mounted lighting should be provided instead of building-mounted lighting, and lighting fixtures should be properly shielded and directed so as ~o minimize glare on adjacent residences. Screening and noise mitigation is to be provided for all exterior mechanical equipment, andalt such equipment be roof-mounted. The architectural treatment at the rear of the shopping center is to match the front of the shopping center. Trees planted in the perimeter greenbelt' are to be placed 20 feet on center with canopies above the 6 foot high concrete block wall that is required adjacen= to residential zoning. , r~ The staff comments contained wit this memorandum. JJG:frb NOTE: Pursuant to Section 163.317414)(d), Florid~Statutes, the Plarming and Zoning Board, as the Local Planning Agency, is required to make a reco~nendation to the City Commission with respect to the consistency of these proposed amendments A:PM90-157 Page 11 of PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-161 THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chairman & Members Planning & Zoning Board Timothy P. Cannon ~ Interim Planning Director James J. Golden Senior city Planner June 8, 1990 Requests for Annexation, Future Land Use Element Amendment, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan text Amendment Submitted by Kilday & Associates for Elsie A. Winchester, Trustee (Knutb Road PCD) - File No. 494 summary: Kieran J. Kilday, agent for Elsie A. Winchester, Trustee, is requesting that a 13.87 acre parcel be annexed into the City, rezoned from AR (Agricultural Residential) in Palm Beach County to a PCD (Planned Commercial Developmen=), and that the Future Land Use Plan designation for this parcel be amended from "Commercial 3" in Palm Beach County to "Local Retail Cormmercial," in the city. In addition, '~the applicant has submitted an application for a Text Amendmen~ ~o Area 7.j, of the comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element supporu Documents, which currently reads as follows: 7.j. Parcel at Southwest Corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road This is a 14 acre parcel which is currently approved in the unincorporated County as a golf and tennis facility. If developed as such, a Recreational Land Use and Zoning designation would be appropriate. It is likely, however, that the property will be developed for more intensive uses. Regardless of how the properuy is developed, the owner or developer should be required to submit an application for annexation. The City should permit Local Retail Commercial on the northern 225 feet of this property, in accordance with the adopted Boynton Beach Boulevard plan. The remainder of the property should be placed in the Moderate Density Residential Land Use category. Building heights on this proeprty should be limited, howeves, to 2 st~ories (25) feet, since 1 and 2 story residences lie in close proximity ~o the south and southeast. The amendment to Area 7.j. would be necessary ~o allow for the issuance of a Development Order, pursuanu to Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, s~nce the proposed developmen~ is not consistent with this section of the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The subject parcel occupies 613 feet of frontage on West Boynuon Beach Boulevard and 985 feet of frontage on Knuth Road. (see attached location map in E~hibit "A"). The property is currently vacant and is occupied by exotics and several stands of slash pines. The proposed use ef this properuy, if rezoned, would be to develop it for a 120,000 sq~/are foot shopping center, including two outparcels [see attached masuer plan in Exhibit "B"). Surrounding Land Use and Zoning (see attached location map Exhibit "A"}: Abutting th~ subject parcel ~o uhe nortk, is a 106 foot wide right-of-way for West Boyn=on Beach Boulevard. Abutting the subject parcel to the east is the existing 60 foot wide right-of-way for Knuth Road. Further ~o the east, across Knuth Road, are the Plaz~ West and Knuth Road office buildings zoned C-1 (Office Professional), and the Stonehaven Planned Unit Page 1 of ADDENDUM I . , ~, _~1 .~ PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-161 Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 2 Development zoned PUE, which consists of single-family zero lot line units (a/k/a Banyan Creek). Abutting the subject parcel to the south and west is the Quail Ridge golf course, zoned AR (Agricultural Residential] in Palm Beach County. Proposed Rezoning (see master plan in Exhibit '~"): According ~o Section 6-F.L Df Appendix A, Zoning, the purpose of the PCD zoning district "is to provide a zoning classification for commercial developments that wilt better satisfy current demands for commercially zoned lands by encouraging development which will reflect chan~es in the concepts ~nd ~echnology of land development and relate the development of land to th~ specific site, to co~serve natural amenities and to allow for the mitigation of negative impacts which result frem land development. The proposed development ih a 120,000 square foot reuail shopping center which includes two ou~parcels: a financial institution and a restaurant. A ten foot wide greenbelt is provided along the northern boundary, and along a portion of the eastern property boun~ry~-where the subject pareel abuts nqn-residential zoning categories. A twenty-five foot wide greenbelt is provided along portlo~s of the east, south, and west property boundaries where the subject parcel abuts residential-zoned parcels in Bo!rnton Beach (Stonehaven) PUD and Palm Beach County (Quail Ridge North). The proposed perimeter greenbelt conforms to the requirements of the PCD zoning district regulations. Access is provided by a driveway onto West Boynton Beach Boulevard and ~wo driveways on~o Knuth Road. Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Map and Text: The propert~ in question is currently shown on the Future Land Use ~lement for the R~serve Annexation Area as a combination' of ' Moderate Densit~ Residential" and "Local Retail commercial", so an amendment to the ~ut~re Land Use Element to "Local Retail Commercial , as requested by the applicant, would be necessary. Im addition, Area 7. j. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents contains the following language: 7.j. Parcel ~ Southwest Corner o~ Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road This is a 14 a~re parcel which ~s currently approved in the unincorporated County as a golf and tennis facility. If developed as such, a Recreational Land Use and Zoning designation would be appropriate. It is likely, however, that the property will be de~eloped for more intensive uses. Regardless of how the property is developed, the owner or developer should be required to submit an application for annexation. The City should permit Local Retail Commercial on the northern 225 feet of this property, in accordance with the adopted Boyn~on Beach Boulevard plan. The remainder of the property should be placed in the Moderate Densit~ Residential Land Use category. Building heights on this proper~y should be limited, however, to 2 stories (25 feet), since 1 and 2 story residences lie in close proximity to the south and southeast. The applicant has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Area 7.j. above. The proposed amendment reads as follows: Page 2 of ADDEND~ I PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-161 Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 3 7.j. Parcel at Southwest Corner of Boyn~on Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road I~is is a 14 acre parcel which is currently approved in the unincorporated County as a golf and tennis facility. If developed as such, a Recreational Land Use and Zoning designation would be appropriate. It is likely, however that the proper=y will be de~eloped for more intensive uses. Regardless of how the property is developed, the applicant should be required to submit an application for annexation. The City Should permit Local Retail Commercial as~ez~amse-w~h-~he-a~e~ked-Be~nten-Beaeh-Be~%eva~-p~a~--The ~ema~m~e~-e~-the-p~eperty-sh~-Be Be~s~y-ReS~ene~a~-~a~-use-eaee~z"f. Building heights on this property should be limited, however, to 2, stories (25 feet), since i and 2 s=ory residences lie in close'proximity ~o the south and southeas=. An amendment to Area ?.j. would be necessary, given the proposed nature cf the development. Procedure: These applications for annexation, amendment to the ~ ~and U~e Element of the Comprehensive Plan, tex~ amendment, and rezoning are being processed consistent with State Statutes and Bolrnton Beach Codes, Ordinances and Resolutions as follows: F.S. 163.3161: Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Developmen= Regulation Act. F.S. 166.041: Procedures for Adoption of Ordinances and Resolutions~ 3. F.S. 171.011: Municipal Annexation and Contraction Act. 4. Bo!rnton Beach Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Section 3A5(e): Boundary and Zoning. 5. Boynton Beach Ordinance ~79-24. 6. Boynton Beach Resolution =76-X: Procedures for Annexation. Boynto~ Beach Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Section 9.C:' Comprehensive Plan Amendments/ Rezonings. These regulations have been listed for informational purposes. Briefly, these regulations require sewspaper advertisements, public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission, review by the Department of Community Affairs, and Commission adoption of ordinances ~o annex, amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element/Text, and rezone. These procedures take approximately 8 =o 9 months to complete. Planned Commercial Development Standards: There are three standards listed in the PCD regulations which affect the location and ability ~o serve from a planning perspective. These three standards are: Page 3 of ADDENDUM I PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-161 TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 4 1. Relation to Major Transportation Facilities Standard number one suggests that PCD's should be located where access to ma~or roadways is afforded, and where t~affic levels g~nerated in resideRtial areas will be acceptable, The project meets the ma~or road access portion of this standard. ~owever, with respect to traffic levels generated in residential areas, the proposed shopping center will likely increase the volume of commercial traffic on Stenehav~n Drive, which links Knuth Road to Congress Avenue, and ~erves as a bypass for the traffic signal at North Congress Avenue and West Boynton Beach Boulevard. 2. Roadway Improvements and Utility Extensions Standard nbu~ber two suggests that the applicant shall be ~esp~nsible for constructing and dedicating all nfrastruot~re necessary to serve the site, including the d~dication Of additional rights-of-way and the maintenance of roadway capacity when al~licable. I~ can be assumed that the applicant ,will consrruc~ all necessary water ~nd sewer mains which ~are needed to serve the site. In addition, the applicant is proposing the following road%ray improvements a~ the intersection of West Boynton Beach' Boulevard and Knuth Road: Lengthen the existing left turn lane on Knuth Road, south approach, ~o aoco~odate additional left turning vehicles. Signalize the intersection, when warranted, as determined by the County Engineer. Because of the close proximity to the intersection with Mall Road (winchester Park Boulevard), these ~wo signals should be inter-connected. 3. The Physical Character of the Site Standard number three is concerned with the environmental aspects cf the site. The geotechnical data submitted by the applicant indicates that the surficial soils are the Basinqer Series which consist of nearly level, sandy soils with rapid permeability. There are no significant organic deposits on the site. Concerning vegetation, the site is primarly occupied by open grassy areas wit~ several stands of slash pines' existing on-site. The slash pines must be preserved, relocated or replaced in conformace with the requirements of the tree preservation code. Taking into account the above, it can be reported that the site is appropriate for the suggested development from an environmental point of v~ew. Economic Standards: In connection with the Planned Commercial District Regulations, two types of economic analyses are required: A market study and emplo!a~ent projections. The market study concludes that the proposed development is economically feasible (see Exhib:it '~"). The employment projections indicate that approximately 320 mployees will be needed for the proposed shopping center. Page 4 of ADDH~DL%~ I PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-161 TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 5 Issues/Discussion: Secuion 9.c.7 of Appendix A, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, requires the evaluation of plan amendment/rezoning requests againsu criteria related ~o the impacts which would result from the approval of such requests. These criteria and an evaluation of the impacts which would result from the proposed development are as follows: a, Whether the proposed rezoning would be con- sister~ with applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. The Planning Department shall also recommend limitations or requirements which would have to be imposed on subs~quenr development of the property, in order ~o comply with policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed land use amendment/rezoning would not be consistent with Area 7.j. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents. However, the applicant has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment tc Area 7.j. uo amend the existing language to accommodate the proposed devglopment, as outlined in a previous section of this memorandum entitled "Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map and Text". The Discussion of Supply and Demand for Commercial Land in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents (Volume NO. 1) indicates that there may be up uo 198 acres of excess commercial land ar build-out. However, this figure may be reduced uo a surplus of only 30 acres when certain adjustments are taken into consideration. Thus, it was concluded that the supply of commercial l~nd in the Boynton Beach market area will match the demand. In addition, this section of the Plan also states the follc~ing: "The Future Land Use Plan which is proposed for the City and areas to be annexed by the City will accommodate all of anticipated demand for commercial land through build-out. Therefore, the City should not change the land use to commercial categories, beyond that which is shown on the proposed Future Land Use Plan, except for minor boundary adjustments, small infill parcels, or commercial uses of a highly specialized nature, which have special locational or site requirements, and therefore cannot be easily accor~odated on already designated commercial area". (page 40) Policy 1.19.6 of ~the Comprehensive Plan states-. "Subsequent Plan adoption, do not allow commerczal acreage which is greater than the demand which has been projected, unless it can be demonstrated that a particular property is unsuitable for other uses, oz a geographic need exists which cannot be fulfilled by existing commercially-zoned, property, or no other suitable properuy for a commercial u~e exists for which a need can be demonstrated, and the commercial use would comply with all other applicable comprehensive plan policies." The proposed rezoning would not be consistent with this policy. Concerning the location of commercial land, this section of the Plan states the following: "Commercial land uses west of Interstate 95 are dominated by the regional ~all, and its satellite stores and offices. Neighborhood shopping centers and office located in the vicinity of mos= major intersections. The Page 5 of ADDENDUM PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-161 TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 6 City should continue its policy of encouraging commercial uses to be located at in=ersections~ and discouraging strip commerelal development, due to the aesthetic and traffic safety problems that strip developmen= creates. Furthermore, allowing additional commercial land use in the vicinity of the Bolrnton Beach Mall would be likely to cause traffic levels on roads in the vicinity to fall below established levels of service. Commercial development .beyond that which is shown on the proposed land use plan should be permitted only if the City, or the applicant for development applies for a lower level of service, by seeking to have properties in the vicinity approved as a regional act%vity center and an Areawide Development of Regional Impact". (pp 40-41) . In addition no the above, there will be a further discussion concerning consistency with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies in subsequen= sections of this memorandum. At the end of this memorandum, in the section entitled "Project Apnrova~" t = ' he Planning Department shall recommend limitations and requirements which should be imposed on subsequent development of the property, if this request is approved, in order to comply with policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. ' Concerning consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan, the Palm Beach County Planning Division has been notified of the proposed annexation. However, comments have not been received as of this date. Whether She proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacenr and nearby districts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare. As outlined in Area 7.j. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documenus, "the City should permit Local Retail Commercial on the northern 225 feet of this property and the remainder of the proper=y should be placed in the Moderate Density Residential Land Use Category". In addition, the section of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents that discusses the location of commercial land states the following with respec= to further commercial development in the vicinity of the Boynton Beach Mall: The City should continue its policy of encouraging commercial uses to be located a~ intersections, and discouraging strip commercial development, due to the aesthetic and traffic safety problems that strip development creaues. Furthermore, allowing additional commercial land use in the vicinity of the Boynton Beach Mall would be likely to cause traffic levels on roads in the vicinity to fall below established levels of service. Commercial development beyond that which is shown on the proposed land use plan shouid be permitted only ii the City, or the applicant for development applies for a lower level of service by seeking to have properties in the vicinity approved as a regional activity center and an Areawide Developmen= of Regional Impact". Page 6 of ADDENDUM I PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-161 TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board JUne 8, 1990 Page 7 With respect to the above, the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the sstablished land use pattern and would arguably constitute a grant of specialprivilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with proteetion of the public welfare. c. Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable. There has been no significant change in conditions zn the vicinity of this property, since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan which wmuld make the proposed rezoning desirable. ~rnether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities. The proposed rezoning would be compatible with water and sewer systems, Concerning roadways, The Traffic Impact Review prepared by Walter H.- Keller, Jr., Inc. indicates that the applicant's analysis of impacted roadways is incomplete and should be revised. A copy of Mr. Keller's report can be found in Exhibit "D" of this memorandum. The proposed rezoning will also consume road capacity that will be needed to allow for commercial development of other parcels in this area of the City which are designated for co~uercial land use on the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, as outlined ~n the attached supplement dated June 6, 1990 from Walter Keller in Exhibit "D". Consistent with various policies contained within the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, a copy of the developer's traffic impact analysis was submitted to Palm Beach Counuy for review and comment. Among other issues, the County does not consider this application to have been complete prior to February 1, 1990, the adoption date of the Municipal Implementation Ordinance (see attached copy of correspondence dated June 5, 1990, from the Office of the County Engineer in Exhibit D). e. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, or would affect the property values of adjacent and nearby properties. The proposed rezoning would be incompatible with and would likely have a negative impact on property values~ in the Stonehaven PUD, due to the additional traffic that would be generated through this neighborhood. In addition, the proposed development would likely have an adverse impact on those single-family residences that are located immediately south of the Knuth Road office building site and across Knuth Road from the southeast corner of the proposed shopping center site. Typical characteristics of shopping centers that would be incompatible with nearby residential uses ~nclude noise from trucks, noise from loading and unloading activities, noise due to unloading of dumps=ers and removal of compactors, odors from dumpsters (which can be ~etec=ed up to 200 feet away), trash and litter accumulation and he unpleasant aesthetics that are tlrpical for the rear of a shopping center. Policy 1.17.1 of the Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the above comments. It ia not anticipated Page 7 of ADDENDUM I PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO;. 90-161 Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 8 that the proposed shopping cen=er would have an adverse impact on the single-fancily residences in Quail Ridge, as the closest units are separated from 'the shopping center site by a 300 foot wide expanse of 'golf course, and a 6 foot high buffer wall and a 25 foot wide greenbelt are required at the rear of the shopping center. · Whether the property is physically and economically developable under the exist- ing zoning. Under the existing Agricultural Residential Zoning in Palm Beach County, the property could be utilized for a varle=y of agricultural or conservation purposes~ Single-family dwellings are permitted on a minimum lot area of 5 acres. If annexed and developed consistent with the policy for Area 7.j. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents, the property could be developed for a maximum of 77 dwelling units u~der t~e Moderate Density 'Residential Land Use category, and a PUD zoning category and a maximum of 55,170 square feet of retail floor space under the Local Retail Commercial Land Use category and the C-2 or C-3 Zoning category. Based on the above, and lacking any documentation to the con=rary, it is arguable fha= the property could be developed economically under the existing zoning. g. Whetherlthe proposed rezoning is of a scale which i~ rea~6nably related to the' needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole, Based on the discussion in item "a" concerning Area 7,j. and the analysis of supp!~, demand and location of commercial land uses in the Comprehehsive Plan Future Land Use Element Supporu Documents, it is erquable that the proposed rezon~ng is not of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole. Furthermore, approval of additional retail~ development in this area of the City may limit and compete with ~ed~velopment in the Central Business District, along U.S.1, and ~lonq Bo~on Beach Boulevard east of 1-95. h. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City for the proposed use, in districts where such use is already allowed. As outlined in th9 discussion of supply and demand for commercial land in the Future Land Use Element Support Documents of the Comprehensive Plan, "the Future Land Use Plan which is proposed for the City and areas to be annexed by the City will accommodate all of the anticipated demand for commercial land through build-out". %~nis paragraph of the Plan further s~aues that "the City should not change the land use =o commercial categories, beyond that which is shown on the proposed Future Land Use Plan, except for minor boundary adjustments, small infill parcels, or commercial uses of a highly specialized nature, which have special locational or site requirements~ and therefore cannot be easily accommodated on already designated commercial are~" This discussion is formalized in Policy 1.19.6 of -~h~ Comprehensive Plan. A further detailed analysis of the supply and demand of commercial l~nd is contained within the Future Land ~n~lement Support Documents (Volume No. 1) of the Comprehensive Page 8 of ADDENDUM I PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-161 TO: Chairman & Members, Planning Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 9 Conclusions/Recommendations: The Planning Deparument recommends that the requesns for Future Land Use Element Amendment, Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment submitted by Kieran J. Kilday for Elsie A. Winchester, Trustee, be denied. This recommendation is based on the following summary of findings contained within the staff report: The proposed shopping center will likely zncrease the volume of commercial traffic on Stonehaven Drive, which links Knuth Road to Congress Avenue and serves as a bypass for the traffic signal at North Cohgress Avenue and West Boynuon Beach Boulevard; The proposed la~d use element amendment/rezoning would not be consistent with thepolicy for Area 7.j. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Suppor= Documen=s; The Discussion of Supply and Demand for Commercial Land in the Cmmp~ehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents indicates 'that there maybe anywhere from 30 To 198 acresof excess' commercial land at build-out. Thus, the supply is expected to m~tch the demand. This section of the Plan and PQlicy 1.1926 also state that the Future Land Use Plan for the City and areas to be annexed by the City will accQmmodate all of the anticipated demand for commercial land through ~uild-out and, therefore, the City should not further change the lan~ use to commercial categories, except for minor boundary adjustments; The discussion for the Location of Commercial Land in the Comprehensive P~an F~tute Land Use Element Support Documents states that fur~-her strip commercial development should not be allowed in t~is area of the City due to the aesthetic and traffic sa~ety~robl~ms that are crea~ed and that traffic levels on roads in the vicinity would likely fall below established levels of service. This section of the Plan further states that commercial developmen= beyond that which is ~hown on the, proposed la~d use plan should :be permitted only if the City, or the applicant for development applies for a lower level of service, by seeking to have properties in thevicinity approved as a regiohat activity center and an Areawide Development Of Regional Impact. 5. The proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use patter~ and would arguably constitute a grant of special privile~ to an individual property owner as contrasted wi~h~ protection of the public welfare; There has been no significant change in conditions in the vicinity of this propercy since the ~doption of the Comprehensive P~an, that would make the proposed rezoning desirable; The applicant's analysis of impacted roadways ~s incomplete and should be revised. It should also be noted that the proposed rezoning will consume road capacity that will be needed to allow~ for commercial developmen~ of other parcels in this area of the City which are designated for commercial land use on the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 9 of ADDenDUM I PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-161 TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 10 The proposed rezoning would not be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby propertie~ due to,the additional traffic that would be generated along Stoneh&ven Drive and the proximity of the shopping center to the homes in Banyan Creek, as provided for in Policy 1.17.1 of the Comprehensive Plan. The property is physically developable under the City's current Moderate Density Residential and Local Retail Commercial land use designations for 77~dwelting units and 55,170 square feet of retail floor space respectively, and it ia arguable that the property could be developed economically under the existing zoning. 10. It is arguable that the proposed rezoning is not of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the city as a whole; 11. Approval of additional retail development in this area of the City may limit and compete with prospects for redevelopment in the Central Business District, U.S. 1, and Boynton Beach Boulevard east of 1-95; and, 12. As outlined in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents, and f6rmalized in Policy 1.19.6 of the Comprehensive Plan, there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City for the proposed use, as well as in the City's Reserve Annexation Area. PROJECT APPROVAL If it is the desire of the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval or the City Commission to approve these requests, it zs recommended that approval be contingen~ upon the following: 1. Approval of the Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment uo Area 7.j. as modified below: 7.j. Parcel at Southwest Corner of Boynuon Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road This is a 14 acre parcel which is currently approved in the unincorporated County as a golf and tennis facility. If developed as such, a Recreational land use and zoning designation would be appropriate. It is likely, however, that the property will be developed for more intensive uses. regardless ~f how the property is developed, the owner should be required to submit an application for annexation. If the land use is changed to Local Retail Commercial, the property should be developed as a Planned Commercial District (PCD). In addition, the following restrictions should be placed on the development of the property if rezoned for commercial land use to mlnimzze adverse impacts on adjacent residential communities: Building heights should be limited to one story (maximum 25 feet). Pole-mounted lighting should be provided instead of building-mounted lighting and lighting fixuures should be properly shielded and directed so as =o minimize glare on nearby residences. ~~i ! ~ Page 10 of ADDENDUM I PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-161 TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 11 Screening and noise mitigation should be provided for all exterior mechanical equipment, and all such equipment be roof-mounted. d. The architectural treatment at the rear of the shopping oenter is to match the front of the shopping center. Trees planted in the perimeter greenbelt are to be placed 20 feet on centerwith canopies above the 6 foo~ hiqh Concrete block wall that is required adjacent to residential zoning. The staff cormments contained within Exhibit "E" of this memorandum. JJG:cp NOTE: Pursuant ~o Section 163.317414)(d), Florida Statutes, the Planning and Zoning Board, as the Local Planning Agency, is required to make a recommendation to the City Commission with respect to the consistency of these proposed amendments with the Comprehensive Plan. Page 11 of ADDH~DUM I B~,d ~d' Count~ C0m~lono~ Carol J. Elmqu~t, Karcn T. MarCus, Vic~ Chair Carol A. Ron Howard Carole June 5, 1990 County Admlnbt~,~tor .!,n Winters and Public ~amas J, Goldan Senior City Ptannev City of ROynbon 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. P. O. Box gl0 Boynton Ba~ch~ FL RE: TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSES FOR BOYNTON B£A~H BOULEVARD POD AND KNUTH ROAD Dear Hr. ~olden: A~ requested by your letter of April 3, 19gO, the Palm Beach County Trafftu Division has reviewed the traffic reports for the tWO proposed shopping canters entitled Boynton 8each Boul~wrd POD and Knuth Road PCD. Tho following comments ~re submitted for your consideration: l) Based Hpon copies of correspondence from your office to the applicant's a~ent (Kilday & Associates, Inc.) dated ~ebruary 13, lggO, ~e do not ~on~l~er th~ ~E~catlons foE thesagrpJec~s to have been complete pr~6~ ? ?oruery ~, ~? and there?ore ves~ea against the new Countywide Traffic ~errormance Standard! (County O~dinanca gO-7) as per the Municipal Implementation Ordinance (County Ordinance 90-~). To comply with these County Ordinlnces, new traffic reports need to be submitted by the applicant to your office as well as our office for review. z) If t~. o~pac~e~ on each of the shop~ing center site plan~ will be sp~clt~ca~my /~mited to restaurant ~nd financial Institution use, thet~ tmp generation Should be separately c~lcul~ted at the higher ~ates'that are representative of these land uses rather than in:luded es pa~t of the general retaH co~ercial area. B) Under. Test #1 of the new Countywide Traffic Standard (which te comparable to the previous unincorporated are~ standard . County Ordinance B7-18), significant project tra??i~ would oocu~ on two link~ of Boynton Beach Boulevard that are projected 'to exceed thel~ ex(sting an~ committed capacities. No imp.ro~ments are recommended ?o~ either o~ those two links (Military Trail ta E1 Claire Ranch Ro~d and Old BaYnten Road to Int~r~tate 95). Without some co~itment from thes~ developers to improve these two links the traffic standard is violated. 1LEC I ,r D JUN 5 1990 Equ~! Opportunlt7 . Affirmative Action Employer" Page 1 of ~D~ J O~mes O. Gotden Pa~e-2 Jun~ 4, 1990 de not hesitate to c~ntact me if ynu harm ~ny questions concerning these £onTmen~s. Sincerely, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER AAE~b ' co: Audrey Wolfe, Special Projects Coordinator - County Engineering Dept. File: General - TP$ - Municipalities - Traffic' Study Kevtew$ Intersection: 'Boyn~on Beach 61¥d, & Knuth ;eaU' General - IPS - ~unlclpalltla; - Vesting Oete~min~ttons aae\BBaKnPCD Page 2 of ADDENDUMJ PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chairman & Members Planning & Zoning Board Timoth~ P. Cannon ~ Interim Planning Director James J. Golden Senior City Planner June 7, 1990 Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD Conditions of Zoning Approval With 1. respect to the above, please he ': A master plan modification wi res~auran~ is proposed at the ~Seotions 6.F.5.a and 6.F.t3 of Appendix A-Zoning] Roadway improvements recommended by K. S. ~6gers, Inc. in the Traffic Impact Analysis dated January 30, 1990 (page 10), and the modifications recommended by the City's Traffic Consultant, Walter H. Keller, Jr., Inc., in the Traffic Impacu Review dated May 29, 1990 (page 4), should be bonded prior to final plat approval. The bonding of said roadway improvements should be coordinated with the City's Engineering Department. ?~ Right-of-way to be dedicated, ~f necessary, in accordance with the Palm Beach County Right-of-Way Thoroughfare Protection Map and Policy 2.6.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. Said right-of-way dedication should include any right-of-way that is necessary for expanded intersections, Pursuant to the ~raffic Impact Review prepared by Walter R. Keller, Jr., Inc., dated May 29, 1990, a revised traffic impact analysis should be submitted which includes a revised analysis based on all assured construction pro3eets, an appropriate assignment to Lawrence Road and Military Trail; an analysis of Mall Road (Winchester Park Boulevard) and revised peak hour turning movements on Figure 5. The applicant's analysis should also address the finding by the Palm Beach County Engineering Department (see letter dated June 5, 1990) that Boynton Beach Boulevard from Military Trail uo E1 Clair Ranch Road would be over capacity. With regard to the County Engineer's comment that the link of Boynuon Beach Boulevard from Old Boynton Road to 1-95 will be over capacity, it should be noted that this link will be improved by Palm Beach County, however this link will still be over capacity according to the Keller's report. JJG:cp A:PM90-171 TO: FROM: OATE: June 1, I990 RE$ Determination of Boynton Beach Boulevar Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Planning Diremtor and Ta~bri J. Heyden, AsSistant City Planne~ Scott A. Elk, Assista~ In response =o your memorandum Chafer, City Attorney, upon my Land Us~ Amendment and/or applications for tho.Boynton Road PCD contain affirmative Control provision= of S~etion 6 allow the City in th~ future provided for under this =tat~munt~ ~f A~reement to Unifi a typographical ~rror which refe A similar agreement to the Unif~ 6, Boynton Beach Cod~, should b~ Tara Oaks PUD, to ~nsure that implement all Unified Control lmptemen~ all necessary Agreamen and Sureties, acceptable to the Please uote the= this examination by the city Attorne or unified Control, nor a Certi~ any such Agreements and Evlden requirements of the Zoning Rag Co~tra=ts, Deed Restrlc~ions, and required by the City, at th and provide all comments and Exanination and Ceritift=ation. If I may be of any further a hesitate to c0~tact me. SAE/kem BOYNTON MEMo2 Cherof, City Attor James t City Attorn.y ~ Control for: Taxa Oaks PUD, and Fuluth Roa~ da~a~ May 15, 1990 to, James A. ng Applioation~, I find that the ich Boulevard, POD and the Knuth ~tements agreeing to %he Unified Boynton B~aoh Cc~e, whioh will to fm~lemen~ all requi=ements ~ Control~ Paragraph o~ there is :s to "Sub Section ~A" and should obtained fr~m the applicant for th~ City cf Boynton Beach ~ay R~qutre~ents of section ~, and :s, Contracts, Deed Res~rlctions, :l~y when appropriate. mdum does not constitute an ' of ail Agreements and evidence .cation by the City Attorney that ~e of Unified Control meet the ~lations. Whe~ such Agreements, [ Sureties are deemed appropriate at time I shall review the same revisions, prior to my final ~imtance to you, please do not TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. Chairman & Members · Planning & Zoning Board Timothy P. Cannon ~ Interim Planning Director James J. Golden Senior city Planner June 7, 1990 Knuth Road PCD- Conditions of Zoning Approval With respect to the above, please be advised of Jthe following: i. A mas~er plan modification will be required if a drive-thru restaurant is proposed at the outparcet site (Seotions 6.F.5.a and 6.F.13 of Appendix A-Zoning). 2. Right-of-Way uo be dedicated in accordance with the Palm Beach County Right-of-Way Thoroughfare Protection Map and Policy 2.6.3. of the comprehensive Plan. Said right-of-way dedication should include any right-of-way that is necessary for expanded intersections. 3. Pursuant to the Traffic Impact Review prepared by Walter H. Keller, Jr., Inc., dated May 29, 1990, the applicant's analysis of impacted roadways is incomplete and should be revised In accordance with the recommendations contained ~n said Traffic Impact Review. The applicant's analysis should also address the finding by the Palm Beach County Engineering Department ~see letter dated June 5, 1990) that Boynton Beach Boulevard from Military Trail to E1 Clair Ranch Road would be over capacity. With regard to the County Engineer's comment that the link of Boynton Beach Boulevard from Old Boynton Road to 1-95 will be over capacity, it should be noted that this link will be improved by Palm Beach County, however, this link will still be overcapacity according to the findings in Mr. Keller's report. 4. Roadway improvements recommended by the developer's traffic consultant and the City's traffic consultant, pursuant to approval of the revised traffic impact analysis by the City's traffio consultant, should be bonded prior to final plat approval. The bonding of said roadway improvements should be coordinated with the City's Engineering Department. 5. The billboards that exist on the property should be removed within 60 days of annexation, as they are no~ allowed under the City's sign ordinance. JJG:cp A:PM90-174 Kilda¥ &' Associates Landscape Architects/Planners 1551 Forum Place Suite 100A West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 (407) 689-5522 · Fax: [407) 689-2592 BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD P.C.D. APPLICANTS RESPONSE A. Whether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. The Planning Department shall also recommend limitations or requirements which would have to be imposed on subsequent development of the property, in order to comply With policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Simultaneous with the epplication for rezoning, the applicant requested an amendment to the existing Land Usa designation and text for Area 7.k. of the Future Land Use Element Support Document. If these amendments are approved, the subsequent rezoning will be censistent with the amended text. Page 40 of the Plan specifically allows additional commercial designations "for minor boundary adjustments, small infill parcels, or commercial uses of a highly specialized nature, which have special locational or site requirements, and therefore cannot-be easily accommodated on already designated commercial areas." The applicant contends that this site meets these requirements. Much of the commercial inventory referenced by staff is located in other areas of the City where lack of demand and/or dimensions make the future prospect ofdevelopment unlikely. Modern shopping facilities include larger anchor stores than even several years ago. Much of the available c~mmercial inventory is along U.S. 1 and is of insufficient depth to accommodate~ these uses. Additionally, the new uses wish to locate in an area where the population can support the uses. Again much of the vacant commercial land is in the wron~ place. Lastly, the location of the mail in this area has d~signated this ~eogr~phic area as a prime commercial location attractin~ users ~o where people are already golng. The applicant feels that this property is alse an infill situation. All of the land surrounding it is already developed. The text for Area 7.k. specifically recommends C-4 zoning and the existing post office as leqitimate and desirable uses. These uses abut the site° The applicant believes a properly designed Planned Commercial Development allows for appropriate infill and transition Detween these more intensive uses and the residential prope~y to the west. Page 1 of ADDENDUM N Boynton Beach Blvd. PCD Applicant's Response Page 2 of 4 Furtkermore Policy 1.19.6 of the Plan states t!iat commercial designations can be allowed when "it can be deI~onstrated that a particular property is unsuitable for other uses." The parcel of property is located at tke intersectzon of Winchester Boulevard and Boynton Beach Boulevard directly adjacent to the post office and County zoned Industrial properties. The current designation of high density mu~tifamily fronting on Boynton Beach Bou!evar~ is not in the best inferest of the city. Because of the intensity of the apartments at buildout. This application eliminates 159 of those units. The Plan'also indicates that "the City should continue its policy ef encouraging commercial uses to be located at intersections, and discouraging strip commercial deVelopm~nt~" This application, located at the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Boynton Beach Boulevard, meets this criteria. The intersection is already signalized and the applicant has offered to allow access to t~le intersection from the adjacent post office. B. Whether the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or nearby distrkcts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an ±ndividual property owner as contrasted with the protection of the public welfare. As previously indicated, the property to the north, east, and south of the petition is currently being utilized for Commercial or I~stitutional purposes. The Planned Commercial Development is designed to mitigate any impact with the residential property to the west and southwest. Furthermore, the design allows access to the post office at a signalized intersection (Boynton Beach Boulevard and Winc~ester Boulevard) providing a benefit to the Boynton citizens in both the incorporated and unincorporated area. C. Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable. The proposed use has probably been the best use for the property for some time. Because the property was owned by absentee owners (University o~ Florida Trust) uhe question of its ultimate use has never previously been discussed in detail. The current designation was assigned by staff with no input from the property owner. Page 2 of ADDENDUM N Boynton Beach Blvd. PCD Applicant's Response Page 3 oi 4 D. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility systems, roadways, and other public f~cilities. The proposed use constitutes a significant decrease in the amount of water and sewer connections required under the High Density designation. Mr. K.S. Rogers has addressed the issues raised in Mr. Keller's letter. Because this algplication was submitted to Boynton Beach prio~ to February l, 1990 it is not Subject to the Municipal Implimentation Ordinance. (See letter of Mr. Cannon.) E. Whether the proposed rezoning would be co~apatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, or woul~ affect the property values of adjacent or nearby properties. The proposed use is entirely consistent with the existing and future land uses to the north, east, and south, as previously stated. The applicant has designed the Planned Commercial Development to minimize any impact on adjacent neighbors. To that end, the applicanthas met with the adjacent neighbors several times, and offered a separate agreement guaranteeing certain buffering conditions between Stonehav~n PUD. and the applicant. F. Whether the property is physically and economically developable under the existing zoning. The applicant contends that the property is not developable under existing zoning for the following reasons: The location of the property at a major intersection with surrounding intensive and industrial type uses makes any residential use unfeasible. The property has considerable muck deposits. Ail building pads will have to be demucked at a considerable expense. The total building coverage of the Planned Commercial Development is much less and more compact than a High Density residential development. The applicant does not believe a residential project can absorb the cost of this process. G. Whether the proposed rezoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighkorhood and the City as a whole. Page 3 of ADDENDUM N Boynton Beach Blvd. PCD Applicant's Response Page 4 of 4 The applicant has submitted a market analysis indicating that this project is supportable by existing and future populations. The staff has accepted the findings of this analysis. This use will have no effect on the Central Business District as there are no properties ~.n that area of similar configuration which would allow a development of-this type. H. Whether there are adequatesites elsewhere in the City for the proposed use, in districts where such use is already allowed. The applicant has reviewed the City inventory of commercial lands and has determined there'are no other sites of similar size, s~ape, and location except for the companion petition, Knuth Road, PCD. The value of this site is particularly enhanced by its location at the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Boynton Beach Boulevard which is a major accessway to Beynton Beach Mall. Page 4 of ADDENDUM N , Associates Landscape Architects/Planners 1551 Forum Place Suite 100A West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 .407) 689-5522 · Fax: [407) 689-2592 KNUTH ROAD P.C.D. APPLICANTS RESPONSE A. Whether the proposed rezoning would bec6.nsistent with applicable comprehensive Plan potici:es. The Planning Department shall also recommend limitations cr requirements which wOuld have to be imposed on subsequent development of the property, in order to comply with policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. Simultgdleous with the application for rezoniDg, the applicant requested an amendment to the existing Land Use designation and text for Area 7.j. of the Future Land Use Element Support Document. If these amendments are approved, the subsequent rezoning will be consistent with the amended text. Page 40 of the plan specifically allows additional commercial designations "for minor boundary adjustments, small infil! parcels, or commercial uses of a highly specialized nature, which h~ve ~special locati0nal or site requirements, and therefore cannot be easily accommodated on already designated commercial areas.'~ The applicant contends that this site meets these requirements. 1. The property already has a Commercial Designation in Palm Beach County. The County adopted Comprehensive Plan designated the north 450 feet High Intensive Commercial and the remainder as Commercial~ Recreation. There is an existing approval allowing for the construction of a 9olf and tennis center including driving range for this property. The City pla~ also designates the North 250 feeu for Local Retail Commercial. The issue is only one of whether the Local Retail Commercial should be extended to include the entire site, a "minor boundary adjustment." 2. Much of the commercial inventory referenced by staff is located in other areas of the City where lack of demand and/or dimensions make the future prospect of development unlikely. Modern shopping facilities include larger anchor stores than even several years ago. The existing recommended depth of 250 feet cannot accommodate a modern center and violates the City policy of "discouraging strip commercial development." Much of the available commercial inventory is along U.S. 1 and is of insufficienu depth to accommodate these uses. Additionally, the new uses wish to locate in an area Where the population can support the uses. Page 1 of ADDENDUM 0 Knuth Road PCD Applicant's Response Page 2 of 4 Again.much of the vacant commercial land is in the wrong place. Lastly, the location of the mall in this area has designated this geographic area asa prime commercial location attracting users to where people are already going. 3. The intersection of Knuth Road and Boyn~on Beach Boulevard be routed to provide a major entrance to the ~oynton Beach Mall to the North and the applicant has agreec to construct Knuth Road to provide continuity to Woolbright ~oad to the SOuth. Woolbright Road is sChedUled to be c0~suructed by the County in fiscal year 1990-19~91. 3. The applicant feels uhat this property is also an infill situation. All of the land surrounding it is already developed. The textfor Area 7.j. specifically recommends Local Retail Commercial for a portion of the site. As the property is a single entity the applicant is requesting that only this one land use be applied to the site. The applicant believes a properly designe~ Planned Commercial Development allows for appropriate infitl and transition between this intersection and the Quail Ridge golf Course to the south and west. Staff recognizes that the development should have no adverse impact on Quail Ridge. B. Whether the proposed rezoning would be conurary to the established land use pattern,~or would creaue an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or nearby districts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with the protection of the public welfare. As previously indicated the property to the no~th ~nd east the petition is currently being utilized for lommerciat purposes. The existing Commercial depth of the property to the east is significantly deeper that the 250' suggested by staff. The applicant is not requesting that ~ new use be applied to his site, only that the designated use of the frontage be allowed sufficient depth to perm~u a modern designed Planned Commercial Development. The Planned Commercial Development is designed to mitigat~ any impact with the residential property to the west, south and easu through the use of landscape buffers and walls. Furthermore, the applicant is required to signalize the intersection thereby benefitting the residences who now must negotiate this dangerous intersection without a light. Page 2 of ADDenDUM O Knuth Road PCD Applicant's Response Page 3 of 4 C. Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable. The.proposed use has probably been the best use for the property for some time. Because the property was already designated Commercial in part the applican? a~sumed that t ~e whole site could be utilized for Commercial purposes at. such time that development was timely and proper. The application for a Planned CommercialDe~elopment reflects the changing times in shopping center developments where integrated plans supercede old strip commercial development which would occur if the site was built according to the existing plan. The current designation was assigned by suaff with no input from the property owner. D. Whether the proposed rezoning would be ccmpatibte with utility systems, roadways, and other public iacilities. The proposed use constitutes a significant decrease in the amount water and sewer connections required under the Moderate and Local Retail designations..Mr. K.S. Rogers has addressed the issues raised in.Mr. Keller's Letter. Because this application was submitted to Boynton Beach prior to February 1, 199.0 it is not subject to the Municipal Implimentation Ordinance. ISee letter of Mr. Cannon.) E. Whether the proposed rezQn~ng would be compatible with the current and fuuure use of adjacent and nearby properties, or would affect the property values of adjacent or nearby properties. The proposed use is entirely consistent with the existing and future land uses to the north, and east. The applicant has designed the Planned Commercial Development ~o minimize any impact on adjacent neighbors. Staff has concluded that the proposed use wo~ld have no negative effect on Quail Ridge due to the existing buffers and separation of homes because of the golf course design. The applicant has meu with the adjacent neighbors in Stonehaven several timas, and offered a separate agreement guaranteeing certain buffering conditions between Stonehaven P.U.D. and the Applicant. F. Whether the property is physically and economically developable under the existing zoning. The applicant conuends that the property is not developable under existing zoning for the following reasons: Page 3 of ADD~I~D~M 0 Knuth Road PCD Applicant's Response Page 4 of 4 1. The existing depth of the Local Retail Con~mercial designation promotes strip commercial development which not in the interest of good planning or marketable. 2. The small parcel of land remaining cannot be properly developed into a residential community as it ~s uoo small for developing a sense of community. G. Whether the proposed rezoning is of a scale which is reasonably related tothe needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole. The applicant has submitted a market analysis indicating that this ~roject is supportable by existing and future populations. The staff has accepted the findings of this analysis. This use will have not effect on the Central Business District as there are no properties in that area of similar configuration whichwoutd allow a development of this type. H. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City for the proposed use, in districts where such use is already allowed. The applicant has reviewed the City inventory of commercial lands and has determined there are no other~slt~s of ~lar size, shape, and locatio~ except for the con,anion Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD, The value of this site is paruicularly enhanced by its location at the intersection of Winchester Boulevard and Boynton Beach Boulevard which is a ma]or accessway to Boynton Beach Mall. Page 4 of ADDENDUM O FACT SHEET PROJECTED TAX REVENUES The CiLy of Bownton Beach millage rate is 7.~132 (per $i,000) A. Boynton Be~ch Boulevard PCD 18.871 acre site ESTIMATED VALUE: $13,000.000 X 7.9132 $102,871.00 TAXES B. Knuth Road 14.?~ acr2 ESTIMATED VALUE: PCD site $13.775,000 $109,004,00 TAXES ESTIMATED EMPLOYEES Bovnton Beach Boulevard lfnuth Road PCL PCD 290 Empioyees 320 Employees Total ~t0 Employee WATER USE BEFORE Unics or Gallons S~uare Feet Tara Oaks PUDD 78 Units 41,400 Knuth Road PCD 77 Un!ss 40,810 46,070 SF Retail 4,607 9,la0 SF Restaurant 21,750 84,270 Boynton Beach Blvd. PCD 159 Units Sub-Total for Water Use 192,837 Units or Galtonm Square Feet 192 Units 101,800 Church (650 seats) 446 110,900 SF Retail 11,090 9,100 SF Restaurant 21,750 113,000 SF Retail 11,300 7,000 SF Restaurant 17,350 I63,73b SEWER USE BEFORE Gallons Gallons Tara Oaks PUD Units or S~aare Feet 78 Units Knuth Road PCD 7..020 Boynton Beach Blvd. PCD Sub-Total for Sewer Use GRAND TOTALS 77 Units 6,930 46,~70 SF Retail 4,607 9.100 SF Restaurant 21r750 159 Units 14,310 54,617 247,454 Gallons Units or Square Feet 192 units 17,280 Church (650 seats) 446 110,900 SF Retail 11,090 9,100 SF Restaurant 21,750 113,000 SF Retail 11,300 7,000 SF Restaurant 17,350 79,216 242,952 Gallons A~REEMENT Th.is agreement entered into this day of June 1990 by and between Stonehaven Homeowners Association, Inc. (Association) and Bill R. Winchester {Winchester) and Michael A. Schreeder, Trustee (Sohroeder). WHEREAS, there are currently pending before the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, applications for Annexation, Future PCD" and "Knuth Road PCD" and an application for Future Land Use Element Amendment from "Low Density Residential" to "Medium Density Residential" and rezoning from PUD with a Land Use Intensity of four (4) to PUD with a Land Use Intensity of five (5) to allow for the construction of i92 mu]ti-family dwelling units and a church with respect %o the projeQt known as "Tara Oaks PUD"$ and WHEREAS, Schroeder is the Applicant with respect to the application, known as "Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD" pending before the City of Boynton Beach, Florida; and WHEREAS, Winchester is the Applicant with respect to the application known as "Knuth Read PCD" pending before the City of Boynton Beach, Florida~ and WHEREAS, Winchester is the Applicant with respect to the application known as "Tara Oaks PUD" pending before the City of Boynton Beach, Florida; and WHEREAS, Association represents property owners within the residentia! development known as "Stenehaven PUD" lying within the City of Boynton Beach, Florida; and WHEREAS, Association is entering into this Agreement after having been directed to do so by an affirmative vote of its membership in accordance with its by-laws; and WHEREAS, Association and it members have had the opportunity to review the various applications and to make such inquiries with respect to same as they deemed appropriate including meeting with representatives of the applicants; and WHEREAS, Association is opposed to the development of the "Boyntcn Beach Boulevard PCD" property as high density residential and to the development of the "Knuth Road PCD" Page 1 of ADD~IgDUM R Agreement Page 2 of 6 property as moderate density residential as contemplated by the current Comphrehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Association wishes to evidence its support for the approval of the applications with respect to "Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD", "Knuth Road PCD", and "Tara Oaks PUD" provided the Applicant with respect to each of same agrees to certain conditions as described below; and WHEREAS, Winchester and Schroeder wish to evidence their consen.t to the conditions requested by Association; WHEREAS, Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein set forth, the parties agree as follows: I. "Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD". A4 Schroeder agrees that, provided the requisite government approvals for the application are obtained, the development of the property shall be subject to the following conditions and requirements: The installation of a minimum twenty five (25) foot wide landscape buffer between the project and Stonehaven along adjacent property lines. Buffer shall include: a. Four (4) foot high berm b. Six (~) foot high masonry wall located in the center of the buffer Barbed wire barrier on top of the wall subject to City of Boynton Beach approval Landscaping which consists of a minimum of two (2) rows of shade trees twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet in height at time of planting located on thirty (30) foot centers. One row shall be placed on each side of the wall. Tree location shall be staggered to provide the effect of fifteen (15) feet on center separation. Construction of wal~ and berm shall occur simultaneous with site preparation and prior to the commencement of construction of any buildings. Page 2 of ADDt~TDUM R Agreement Page 3 of 6 Maintenance of the wall, berm, and landscaping on both sides of the wall shall remain the obligation of the developer. All dangerous trees within fifty (50) feet of the "Stonehaven PUD" property line shal] be removed by the developer upon final approval of the application. The developer will be required' to enter into and maintain in'effect a contract to provide continuous rodent and peet control. Building heights wilt be limited to one story (maximum 25 feet). All lighting shall be of low intensity and shall be shielded and directed away from surrounding properties and rights- of-ways. The architectural treatment at the rear of the shopping center is to match the front of the shopping center. 8. Screening and noise mitigation is to be provided for all exterior mechanical equipment. Based on the foregoing, the Association endorses the "Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD" application and requests that the members of the City Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission approve it. II. "Knuth Road PCD" Winchester agrees that, provided the requisite government approvals for the application are obtained, the development of the property shal! be subject to the following conditions and requirements: The developer shall construct s six (6) foot masonry wall adjacent to the east right-of-way line of Knuth Road from -"Stonehaven's" north property line (adjacent to office building) south to the north right-of-way line of the L~DD L-25. The Association agrees to the developer in obtaining approval to include this wall section in Page 3 of ADDfi~DUM R Agreement development plans for Knuth Road subject to appropriate impact fee credits. Construction of wall shall occur simultaneous with site preparation and prier to the commencement of construction of any buildings. The developer will participate as follows in providing additional security to "Stonehaven PUD": Assist in preparing applicatione for the public abandonment of Stonehaven Drive from Knuth Road to LWDD L-25. Construction of the following masonry wall segments (which will not be subject to any impact fee credit): l) A section of masonry watl fifty (50) feet in length extending from the east right-of-way of Knuth Road adjacent to the existing office building parking area along the north property line of "Stonehaven PUD". 2) Construction of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the north right-cf-way line of LWDD L-25 from a point parallel with the east property line of "Tara Oaks PUD" easterly to the west right-of-way line of Stonehaven Drive. Said wall section shall commence from the termination point of the wall section referenced in Section Ill below to be the obligation of "Tara Oaks PUD". 3) Provide landscaping to the extent possible adjacent to the wall sections subject to a final determination of land area available. Provide landscaping in the form of twelve (12) to fourteen (i4) foot shade trees on thirty (30) foot centers in those areas where adjacent property Page 4 of ADDM~qDUM R Agreement Page 5 of available PUD~. within "Stonehaven Upon a successful completion of the abandonment of Stonehaven Drive, the developer would be required to provide for the construction of carded guard gates at the north and south entrances to "Btonehaven PUD" up to a m~ximum cost of thirty five thousand dollars ($35,000). 3. The developer shall install signalization at the intersection of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road. Based on the foregoing, the Association endorses the "Knuth Road PCD" application and requests that the members~ of the City Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission approve it. III. "Tara Oaks PUD" Winchester agrees that, provided the requisite government approvals for the application are obtained, the development of the property shall be subject to the fo]lowing conditions and requirements: The developer shall construct a six (6) foot masonry wall along the north right- of-way line of LWDD L-25 from the easg right-of-way line of Knuth Road easterly to a point parallel with the east property line of ~Tara Oaks PUD". It is the intent that this wall section connect with the stipulated wall section contained in the conditions of "Knuth Road PUD". The developer shall provide a twenty five (25) foot wide landscape buffer along the north property line adjacent to the south right-of-way line of the LWDD L-25 Canal. That buffer will consist of landscaping which consists of e minimum of two rows of shade trees twelve (12) to fourteen (14) feet in height at time of planting located on thirty (30) foot centers. Tree location shall be staggered to provide the effect fifteen (lB) feet on center se Page 5 of ADI3~DUM Agreement PaEe 6 of IV. 6 No buildings shall be located closer than forty (40) feet from the north property llne of "Tara Oaks PUD". This setback creates a minimum separation of one hundred seventy five (175) feet from most northerly building to the closest individually owned south property line Of "Stonehaven PUD". Based on the foregoing, the Association endorses the "Tara Oaks PUD" application and requests that the members of the City Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission approve it. Agreement to Run with Land. It is the intention of the parties that the conditions described in this Agreement with respect to each of the applications shall~ if the applications are approved, become conditions running with the land and shall be binding upon the initial developer of the property and each property owner thereafter so long as that person or entity shall have an ownership interest in the property. Stonehaven Homeowners Association, [nc. Michael A. Schroeder Bil 1~ R. %;inchester Paqe 6 of ADD~DU~ R CITY. of BEACH 100 E. Boynton Beach Blvd. P. O: Box 310 Boynton Beach. Florida 33435.0310 OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR 7 June 1990 Mr. Alan Ennis Palm BeaCh County Engineering Department P.O. Box 2429 Building S-1170,PBIA West Palm Beach, FL 33402 Traffic impact Analysis and Knuth Road PCD for Boynton Beach Blvd- PCD Dear Mr. Ennis: Please be advised that the City staff found the applications for the Boynton Beach BoUlevard PCD and Knuth Road PCD tc be complete as of the..submittai date of January 30, 1990. The City considers anY application which is sufficiently complete to allow process- ing through the staff and various city boards to be a complete application. In the case of both of the above-mentioned applications, the items listed in the letter to the applicant, dated February 13, 1990, were minor in nature. The only missing item which could b~ possibly considered substantial in nature were the requirements for a subdivision master plan, however, since these sites will each be developed as a single shopping center, the lack of subdivision plans did not constitute a major ommission. All of the improvements which would be required for a subdivision were shown on the conceptual site plans for the PCD's, or would be constructed as a part of the shopping center site. Since the City considers the two applications to have been complete as of the submission date, the City will continue to process these applications, subject tc the applicant demonstrating that the roadway levels of service, as se% forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan, would be maintained, as well as applicable levels of service in the unincorporated area. The provisions of the City's Plan and Code Ordinances which were in effect at ' ese a plications were submitte~ require that a the t~me th P-. - ~ .... ~ when ~ro~ertv is rezoned, trafflc lmpact ~naiys tlllzed b Palm Beach County, · ~olo and standards u Y . e metho gY · ' s ~s~ng ~ .... ~ ~evelS of service set ~orth ~n the C~ty DU~ SUD]eCt ~o ~ ~ Comprehensive Plan. Page 1 of ADDENDUM S TO: Mr. Alan Ennis Page Two 6/7/90 If you have any questions with regard to these applications, please feel free to contact me. The City appreciates your review and comments regarding the traffic studies whichwere submitted for these two projects. The Planning Department will recommend that the approval of these applications be conditioned upon area. Very truly yours, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH Timothy P. Cannon Interim Planning Director TPC/cmc cc: J. Scott Miller, City Manager James Cherof, City Attorney Vincent Finizio, Engineering Dept. Page 2 of ADDENDUM S FRC~I: RE: E%~GINEERING DEPARrlME~F M~]~ORANDUM NO. 90-102 April 17, J. Scott Miller City Manager Vincent A. Finizio Acting Assistant to the City Engineer T.R.B. Ca,nents Master Plan - Boynt~] Bead] Boulevard P.C.D. (annexation) Rossi & Malavasi ~]gineers, Inc. Kilday & Associates Landscape Architects, Planners 1990 In accordance with City of Iloynton t~ad], I,].orlda,,~ ' Code of Ordinances, Appendix "C", .Sutx]iVision and Platting, Section 4 "Master Plan", the applicant for the above referenced project shall subnit the followinq ted%nical data, infognation and plan corrections: Provide a report detai]in~t a plan of action for the r~nova], of unsuit- able soils necessary in o['der to develop this property. Append i.x "A", Zoo]lng, Secion 6F4 (c) "Physical Character of the Site". The sut]ni bred report, once approved, shall be considered a cc~dition of approval by the Engineering Deparb~ent, Appendix "C", Subdivision and Platting, Article VIII, S~ction 4C(15) "Location mid Results of Subsurface Tests". Provide all geotecl~nical data. Provide a statgnent on tI~ master plan specifying that all utilities are available and have been coordinated with all required utilities. Article VIII, Section 4CI17). -- q~]e applicants sub~ittal did not contain a traffic n~pact analysis and ~s therefore inccmplete. ~e Engineering Department may have additional c~n~nts wi]ich si]all be considered as conditions of approval, upon receipt and review of said analysis. ' Survey shall indicate existing bodies of water, marghes, etc. that are currently on site, Article VIII, Section 4C7, "Topographical Conditions". In accordance with the sub.ittc~] traffic impact analysis which identifies this site as a "Significant Project", place the following note on the master plan "~oynton l~each Blvd. P.C.D. S~{~LL COMPLY WIll ~IE REQUIRS~!~PS StP FORTIt WIRItIN PAlM B.EACH COU~i~f TRAFFIC PERFOI~ANCE STANDARDS, ORDINANCE ii87-18. VAF/ck ADDENDUM T ENGINI;lc3RING DEPAR'II~C M~IU~NDUM NO. 90-103 April 17, 1990 FRCJq: RE: J. Scott Miller City Manager Vincent A. Finizio Acting Assistant to t}~ City Engineer T.R.B. C~ments ~]uth Road P.C.D. (;~lnexation) Ro~st. & Malavasi F~gineers, Inc. Kilday and Associates Landscape Architects/Planners In ¢~nformance with the City of Boynton Bead], Florida, Code of ordinances, APrxendix "C", Subdivision and Platting, Article VIII, Section 4, "Master Plan", tie applicant for the above referenced project st~ll sut]nit tile following technical data, info~nakton and plan corrections: 1. Provide a tract boundary which includes bearings, Appendix "C", Article VIII, Section 4C(6) "Dil~nsions & Bearings Required". 2. Provide location(s) and test results of r~tuired geotechnigal investigations. Appealdix "C", Article VIII, Section 4C(15) "Subsurface Soil Cond~t].ons . Provide a stht~nent on t}P ~ster plan indicating the availability of utilities (telephone, power, water, sewer, gas, etc.) in coordination with all ~equired utilities. Appendix "C", Article VIII, Section 4C(17) "Utilities Stat~nent". Based upon tie data provided ~ithin tile Traffic I~pact Analysis provided by tl~ applicant this project ~n accordance with Pahu Beach County Ordinance ~87-18 is classified as a '"Significant Project" and the following stats,ent shall be provided on tile Master Plm] doca~nent: [<[¢JFH ROAD P.C.D. S[1AI,L CLIqPLY WITH 'I'1~ REQUIR}~I'S SEI' FCR'i~t Wi'EIIIN PALM BEAC}{ COUb~Pf qTiAFFIC PERFOP~CE Si~ANDARDS ORDINANCE ~87-18. VAF/ck cc: Jim Golden, Senior City Planner Vincent A. Finizio ~ ADDENDUM U EXHIBIT "A" DESCRIPTION "TRACTS 121, 104 AND.' 89 LESS THE WEST 25.0 FEET THEREOF; ' TRACTS 90, 103 AND 122 LESS THE EAST 260.0 FEET THEREOF; TRACT 72 LESS THE NORTH 60.0 FEET AND LESS THE WEST 25.0 FEET THEREOF; TRACT 71 LESS THE NORTH 60.0 FEET AND LESS TItE EAST: 260.0 FEET THEREOF; ALL BEING A PORTION OF PALM BEACH FARMS COMPANY PLAT NO. 8, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5, AT PAGE 73, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 20.16 ACRES, MORE OR LESS (GROSS AND NET) ALSO DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A.PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 30. TOWNSHIP 45 SOUTH, RANGE 33 EAST, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT TNE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION RUN THENCE NORTH 01'10'26" EAST ALONG TBE NORTH-SOUTH QUARTER SECTION LINE 40.0 FEET; THENCE EAST 40.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED PARCEL; THENCE CONTINUE EAST 351.64 FEET; THENCE NORTH 01'04s28'' EAST 2513.64 FEET, TO A POINT IN THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF LAKE WORTH DRAINAGE DISTRICT CANAL L-25 AS SAME IS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2063, AT PAGE 1416, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH 'COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 89'49'00" WEST, ALONG SAID RIGBT-OF-WAY LINE 347.30 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF A ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AS IS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 2075, AT PAGE 572, PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE SOUTH 01'10'26'~ WEST, ALONG JUST SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 2512.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. C0~TAINING 20.16 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, (GROSS AND NET). ADDENDUM V PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-177 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD TIMOTHY P. CANNON INTERIM PLANNING DIRECTOR JUNE 8, 1990 TARA OAKS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT\PJEZONING - FILE NO. 473 ENTRODUCTION: Kieran Kilday, agent for Bill Winchester, contract purchaser, is requesting To amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for a 20.16 acre tract of land located between the L.W.D.D, L-25 and L-26 canals, immediately west of the Lakes of Tara Planned Unit Development (see Exhibit "A"- location map). The current land use designation is "Low Density Residential", allowing a maximum of 4.84 dwelling units per acre. The application submitted by Kieran Kilday requests approval of a "Medium Density Residential" land use designation, allowing a maximum of 9.68 dwellings units per acre, and a change in zoning from Planned Unit Developmen~ with a Land Use Intensity=4 (PUD with LUI=4) to PlannedUnit Development with a Land Use Intens±ty=5 (PUD with LUI=5). Although the subjecu parcel is undeveloped with scattered oak and scrub oak clusters existing on-site, a mas~er plan was approved by Ciuy Commission on June 21, 1988, that currently would allow 78 single family, detached units to be built. The proposed use of this property, if approved for a land use and zoning change, would be to develop it as a Planned Unit Development consisting of 192 multi-family units, a private recreation ar~a, and a 20,000 square foot church (see Exhibit "B" - proposed master plan). PROCEDURE: These applications for amendmenu to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and rezoning are being processed consistent with Florida Statute and Boynton Beach codes, ordinances and resolutions as follows: 1. F.S. 163.3161: Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act. 2. F.S. 166.041: Procedures for Adoption of Ordinances mnd Resolutions. 3. Boynton Beach Ordinance ~79-24. 4. Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Section 9C: Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Rezonings. 5. Boyn~on Beach Ordinance 89-38: 1989 Comprehensive Plan. These regulations have been listed for informational purposes. Paraphrasing, these regulations require newspaper advnr=isements, public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Board and City Commission, review by the Deparument of Community Affairs, and Commissio~ adoption of ordinances ~o annex, amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element and rezone. These procedures take approximately 8 uo 9 months to complete. Page' 1 of ADDENDUM W TO: PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-177 Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 2 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING (see Exhibit "A" - location map): As previously discussed, the present zoning of the subject parcel, allowing for the development of 78 single family, detached homes, subject to platting is PUD with LUI=4 (see Exhibit "C" for a copy of the approved master plan). The land use and zoning surroundingthe subject parcel varies. Abutting the subjec~ parcel to the north is an 85 foot wide right-of-way for the Lake Worth Drainage District L-25 Canal. Further to the north and northeast, across the ~he L.W.D.D. ~-25. Canal, are single family detached homes in the Stonehaven Planned Unit Development (Banyan Creek). These homes ar~ valued in ~be $80,000 to $100,000 price range. Abutting the s%~bject parcel to the east are three residential subdivisions, From north to south they are: (1) The Villas of Banyan Creek within the Stonehaven Planne~ Unit Development (2) Clibper Cove and (3) ~he Lakes of Ta~a Pianned Unit Development. The V~l!as of B~nyan Creek and Ctlpper Cove are rental apartment projects, while the Lakes of Tara P%anned Unit Development consists of single family detached zero lot line u~its valued in the $80,00'0 to $i00,000 price range., Abutting the subject parcel to the south ia an 80 foot wide right-of-way for the L.W.D.D. L-26 canal% Further to the sguth, across the L.W.D.D. L-26 canal, is the future right-of-way ~or W6olbright Road. Abuttin~ Woolbright Road 'on the south side is a narrow ~acant parcel which lies within the QuailLake West PUD. The Quail Ridge Planned Unit Development, ~which lies within Palm ~each CoUnty, is located to the southwest and west ~f the s~bjec~parc~l. Quail P~dge is a large g0~f co~rse co,unity aimilarto HUnters RU~ in Bo!alton Beach, wi~h'a mix of 'single and multi-family units valued in ~he $150,000% price range. FUTURE LAND USE: The land use designation of the parcels north IStonehaven PUD - Banyan Creek) and northeasu (Stonehaven PUD - Villas of Banyan Creek a~d The Landings PUD - Clipper Cove) of the subject parcel is "Moderate ~nsity Residential", allowing a maximum of 7.26 dwellings unius per acre. Theland use designation of the parcels southeast (Lakes of Tara PUD) and south, across Woolbright Road extended (Quail Lake PUD] is "Low Density Residential~', allowing a maximum of 4.84 dwellings units per acre. The parcel southwest and south [Quail Ridge) of the subject parcel is in Palm Beach County and has a land use designation of "Low Residential 3", allowing 1 ~o 3 dwellings units per acre. Therefore, the land use category requested, "MediumDen~ity Residential", allowing a maximum of 9.68 dWelling units per acre, is inconsistent with the land use of the parcels in close proximity ~o the subject parcel. PUD ZONING ~/qD MASTER PLAN Isee Exhibit "B" - proposed master plan): The applicant is proposing uo rezone from Planned Unit Developmenu with Land Use Intensity=4 (PUD with LUI=4) to Planned Unit Development with Land Use Intensity=5 (PUD with LUI=5). A discussion of the PUD masuer plan submitted follows: Page 2 of ADDENDUM W PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-177 Chairman & Members, Planning & Eonlng Board June 8, 1990 Page 3 PROPOSED USES Land Use NO. of Units Acres Residential multi-family/rental ~part of pod 1) 198 10.84 Church 3.00 (pod 3) Private Recreation 1.90 (part of pod ~ & 2) Lake 2.00 (part of pod 2) Buffers .38 Right-of-way Dedication 2.04 192 units 20.16 acres The maximum building height will be two sEorles (not to exceed 25 feet). The maximum building coverage will be 40 percent. The minzmum living area will be 750 square feet. ACCESS AND INTERNAL TRAFFIC FLOW TWO access points ~o the multi-family portion of the PUD are proposed; both from Knuth Road. Entrance to the ohurch pod will also be provided from Knuth Road via two driveways. No access ~o the PUD is proposed from $.W. congress Boulevard. If these applications ~or land use amendment and rezoning are approved, the requlremenu uo consEruc~ S.W. congress Boulevard west Eo Knuth Road and to construct Knuth Road south to connect u¢ Woolbright Road shall be imposed consistent with the c~ty's Comprehensive Plan (see Planning Department memorandum - Exhibit "E" ). RECREATION Based on the number and type of units proposed, a total of 2.88 acres is required to be dedicated for parks and recreation purposes. A 1.9 acre prlvaEe recreation area is proposed ~o [-ecelve a 50% ~redit pursuanu to section 8~ Article IX, of Appendix C. This private recreation area is divided between locaulons a .4 acre area located within the residential pod and ~ 1.5 acre area located within pod 2, which is separated from the ~esidenulal pod by S.W Congress Boulevard The following five ~ecrea[ional amenities are proposed: 2. clubhouse 3. jogging trail 5. f i~shing dock ~o be located within the residential pod. The Police DeparEment has expressed concern regarding the location and configuration of joggl~lg trail see Exhibit "E" - Polise Department memoranduml. It is alltzcipated that due uo the secluded buffered nature of problem. Page 3 of ADDENDUM W PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM N0, 90-177 TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 1990 PaGe 4 With respect to the remaining 1.44 acres required foi parks and recreation purposes, the Recreation DepartmenE recommends that a fee be paid in lieu of land dedication (sea Exhibit "E" - Recreation Department memorandum). Since the minimum size required for a neighborhood park is 5 acres and due to the fact that all of the property in the vicinity of the subject parcel is developed or planned for developmeRu, there is no opportunity to combine this ~emaining acreage with park dedic~ti6n-from adj~cen~ properties to meet the minimum size required for a neighborhood park, TOPOGRAPHY SOILS AND VEGETATION The long, narrow, rectangular shape of the s~bject parcel is slighty rolling with the higl~est point lground elevation 19.0 occurring towards the cenuer. The lowest polnt (ground elevation 15.0] occurs aE the southeas5 portion of the parcel; a net change in elevation of 4.0 feet. The parcel contains predominantly two uypes of soils, BasinGer fine sand and Okeelanta muck, Basinger fine sand is ~ poorly drained, deep, sandy soil. Okeelanta muck is similar to BasinGer fine sand in that it is poorly drained soil. 0n-site vegetation consists primarily of exotics and clus=ers of oaks and scrub oaks scattered throughout the south half of the site. Based on available information there should be no impediments to the development of the site owing ~o environmental constraints. However, care should be taken to preserve the oaks and scrub oaks as noted in the correspondence in the Forester/Horticulturist's memorandum in Exhibit "E". DRAINAGE A schematic drainage and storm wauer retention plan has been submitted, on-site ~etention will be diverted to a storm water management tract (lake) located south of S.W. ConGress Boulevard within pod 2, before flowing into the L.W.D.D. L-26 canal along the-south property line of the site Water levels will be controlled by an outfall control structure at the southeast corner of the s~orm water management tract. Littoral zone plantings are required to be installed around s minimum of 50% of the Iakeshore area. POTABLE WATER DISTRIBUTION The site will be served with water by co~ecting to an existing 16 inch watei main located within the Knuth Road right-of-way, north of the L.W.D.D. L-25 canal, and Eo an exlstlng 10 inch waEer main withing the B.W. congress Boulevard right-of-way. SEWAGE COLLECTION The site will be served by conssruct~ng a lift station at the southeast corner of the residential pod which will tie into an existing Gravity sewer within the Lakes of Tara PUD. TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic lmpacE analysis submitted by the developer was reviewed Eo determine conslsEency with the Municipal Implementation Ordinance of the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance, as the application was submitted subsequent ~o February 1, 1990, and the proposed rezoning Generates ~n excess of 500 additional trips per day. A copy of Walter Keller's report (the City's traffic consultantl can be found ~n Exhibit "D" of this memorandum. Briefly, the results of Mr. Keller's review indicate that the applicant meets City a~]d Page a of ADDENDUM W TO: pLkNNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO- 90-177 Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 5 county concurrency requirements, but additional information is requi~ed to assess traffic impacts. The Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering Department has not completed their review, but it is anticipated that their comments will be received prior uo the City Commission meeting. The required roadway improvements are listed in the Planning Department memorandum in Exhibit "E". iSSUES/DISCUSSION: Section 9.c.7 of Appendix A - Zoning, of the Code of ordinances, requires the evaluation of rezoning requests against criteria related uo the impacts which would result from the approval of such requests. These criteria and an evaluation of the impacts which would resuit from the proposed development are as follows: a. Whether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. The Planning Depaztmen= shall also recommend limitations or requirements which wouldhave to be imposed on subsequen~ development of the praperty, in order uo comply with policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezonlng is inconsistentwith Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.4.5 which states, ,.Subsequent to Plan adoption, modify the land development regulations to provide that residential densities shall not be incremsed above those which were assumed in projecting water demand in the Potable Water Sub-element, unless it can be demonstrated that capacity will be obtained by reducing the land use density or intensity elsewhere in the water service area." The applicant has not provided documentation which verifies that the increased water capacity to serve the requested increase in density and intensity of 4.84 dwelling units per acre ~o 9.68 dwelling units per acre (192 multi-family units) would be offset elsewhere. similarly, Policy 1.5,5 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "subsequent to Plan adoption, modiiy the land development regulations ~o provide that residential densities shall not be increased above those which were assumed in projecting sewer flows in the Sanitary Sewer Sub-element, unless it can be demonstrated that capacity will be obtained by reducing the land use density or intensity elsewhere in the sewer service area." The applicant has not provided documentation to verify that the increased deand for sewer capacity to serve the requested increase in density and intensity would be offset elsewhere. In addition to the above, the Planning Department memorandum in Exhibit "E" recommends limitations and requirements which should be imposed on subsequent development of the property, if this request ~s approved, in order to comply with other policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. b. Whether the proposed rezonlng would be contrary to the esuablished land use pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare. As previously discussed on page 2, ,,Future Land Use", all of the surrounding zoning districts are planned unit developmenus with land use intensities equal ~o four or less. Densities of the surrounding districts range from 3 dwellings units per acre to a maximum of 7.26 dwelling units per acre and ~nits are a mixture Df single family, detached homes and multi-family, rental units. Therefore, approval of a ..Medi~nu Density Residential" land use Page 5 of ADDENDUM W PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-177 TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8~ 1990 Page 6 designation, allowing a maximu~ of 9.68 dwelling units pez acre, and a zoning category of Planned Unit Development with a Land Use Intensity=5, would constitute a grant of special privilege to the properuy owner, would be contrary to the established land use pattern and would create an isolated island of "Medium Density Residential" land use surrounded by "Low" and "Moderate Density Residential" lar~ use, Moderate Density Residential, at 7.26 dwellings per acre would be consistent, however, with the density of projects which lie tc the east. c. Wheuher changed or changing conditions make theproposed rezoning desirable. There has been no significant change in conditions in the vicinity of this properuy, since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, that would make the proposed rezonlng desirable. d. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility sysuems, roadways, and other public facilities. Existing City wauer and sewer systems in the vicinity of the Tara Oaks properuy are adequate to serve the proposed project. However, as previously discussed in item "a", the applicant has nou demonstrated thatthe increased water and sewer demand can be offset elsewhere. Concernmng roadways, the proposed rezoning must meet the requiren~nts of the Municipal Implementation Ordinance of the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance before development can proceed, as t_he rezoning generates in excess of 500 new trips per day. With respect to recreational facilities, the private recreation area to be provided plus the recreation fee to be paid in the amounu equivalent to the value of 1.44 acres for the construction of public recreational facilities, will adequately meet the recreation needs of the proposed project. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, or would affect the properuy values of adjacent and nearby properties. As outlined under item "b", the density requested (9.68 dwelling units per acre), would not be consIstent with the densities which exist on surrounding properties ranging from 3 Eo 7.26 dwelling unius per acre. However, it is nou anticipated that the proposed rezoning would affect the properuy values of adjacent and nearby properties, as the proposed multi-family units are to be limited ~o two stories and are to be located north of the extension of S.W. Congress Boulevard, adjacen~ uo existing multi-family units in Clipper Cove and the Stonehaven PUD (a.k.a. Banyan Creek). Also, the church and passive recreauional amenities proposed (picnic area, fishing dock and jogging trail) are located adj ~cent ~o the single ~amily, zero lot tine units in the Lakes of Tara PUD separated by a 15 foot buffer. f. Whether the property is physically and economically developable under the exisbing zoning. Under the existing PUD with LUI=4 zoning, the proper~y could be developed for-78 single family, detached, zero lot line units. Based on the justification suauemenK submitted, it cannot be ascertained whether the properuy is economically developable under the existing zoning, since no economic analysis was included with the application. 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. Page 6 of ADDENDUM W PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-177 TO: Chairman & Members, Planning & Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 7 Based on the discussion under item "a", concerning Policy 1.4.5 and 1.5,5 of the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant's failure to demonstrate that wauer and sewer capacity will be obtained by reducing the land use intensity and density elsewhere in the water and sewer service area and the discussion in item "b" concerning the inconsistency of the proposed "Medium Density Residential" land use withexistia%g "Low" and "Moderate Density Residential" land uses in the vicinity, it is arguable that the proposed rezoning ~n not of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neigb~borhood and the City as a whole. Whether there are adequate siteselsewhere in the City for the proposed use, in districts where such use is already allowed. The analysis of supply and demand for rental apartments in the Future Land Use Element Support Documents (Volume 1), indicates that there may be a surplus of up to 539 rental aparmment units zn the City at build-out (pp. 29-30). Based on the above, it is arguable that there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City for multi-family housing in districts where such use is already all~wed, however the additional number of rental apartments proposed by the applicant would not create a~ excessive oversupply of land for rental apartments. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS: It is the Planning Deparument's recommendation that the requests for Future Land Use Element amendment and rezonin9 submitted by Kieran Kilday for Bill Winchester, contract purchaser, be denied but ~hat a land use density of 7.26 du/acre {"Moderate Density Residential") be approved, This recon~mendation is based on the following findings contained withinthe preceding analysis: The proposed land use amendment and rezonzng is contrary To the established land use pa~uern and would create an isolated island of "Medium Density Residential" land use surrounded by "Low" and "Moderate Density Residential" land use, thereby constituting a grant of special privilege to the property owner. Moderate Density Residential (7.26 du/aore) would be warranted, howe~er, sinc~ this is the density of the apartmenu projects which lie to the east. The applicant has not provided documentation which verifies that the zncreased water and sewer demand to serve the requested increase in density and intensity would be offseu elsewhere. Therefore, the proposed requesus are inconszsuent with Comprehensive Plan Policies 1.4.5 and 1.5.5~ An amendment to Moderate Density Residential would creaue ~dditional wauer and sewer impacts equivalent 40 dwellings, which would not be excessive. PROJECT APPROVAL As previously stated, the curren~ land use designation of the Tara Oaks properuy, "Low Density Residential", allows only a maximum of 4.84 dwelling units per acre, as compared with two of the abutuing parcels having a '~Moderate Density Residential" land use designatzon, allowing a maximum o~ 7.26 dwelling units per acre. Unless the applicant can provide documentation which demonstrates that wauer and sewer capacity can be obtained by reducing the land use density and intensity elsewhere in the water and sewer service area, consistent with Policy 1.4.5 and 1.5.5 of the Comprehensive Plan, it is the Planning Department's recommendation that a "Moderate Density Residential" land use designation would be appropriate. This recommendation is based on the compatibility of this land use with the established land use pattern and the following aspects of the proposed master plan: Pa~e 7 of ADDENDUM W PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-177 TO: Chairman & Members, Planning ~ Zoning Board June 8, 1990 Page 8 a. A 15 foot buffer between the proposed church and adjacent Lakes of Tara single family homes Ail residential uses and the more active recreational amenities (swimming pool and clubhouse) are clustered within pod lon the master plan adjacent to existing multi-family uses to the east (Clipper Cove and Villas of Banyan Creek) There is a distance of 350 feet between the existing single family homes in Quail Ridge to the-west and the proposed multi-familyunits. Approval of a "Moderate Density Residential" land use designation would allow a maximum of 7.26 dwelling units per acre or 146 units, a decrease of 46 units from the 192 units proposed by the applicant. TIM~HY P. CANNON NOTE: Pursuant to Section 163.317414)(d), Florida Statutes, the Planning and Zoning Board, as the local planning agency, is required to make a recommendation to the City Commission with respect to the consistency of these proposed amendments with the Comprehensive Plan. /cp Encs A:TARAOAKS xc: Central File Page 8 of ADDENDUM W FROM: RE: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT M~]~ORANDUM NO. 90-10! REVISSD J. Scott Miller City Manager Vincent A. Finizio Acting Assistant to the City Manager T.R.B. Ccn~nents Master Plan - Tara Oaks P.U.D. (Rezoning) Rossi & Malavasi Engineers, Inc. Kilday & Associates Landscape Architects & Planners April 17, 1990 May 17, 1990 (se~nd review) Compl led In conformance with City of Boynton Beach, Florida, Code of Ordinances, Appendix "C .... Subdivision and Flatting", Section 4 "Master Plan" the applicant for the above referenced project shall sukmit the following tedmnical data, information and plan corrections: Provide a plan which depicts the construction of Knuth Road intersecting Wcolbright Road to the south and Knuth Road to intersect with the existing pertlon of Knuth Road to the north (canal crossings required), Appendix "C" Subdivision and Platting, Section 4C(11) "The incorporation and ccmpa- tible development of present and future streets as shown on t~e official City map when such present or future streets are' affected by the proposed subdivision? Provide the location and results of the geotechnical subsurface soils tests that were utilized in the general soils statement. Section 4C(15) "Locatioa and Results of Tests". -- A traffic ~mpact analysis has not been provided with this suhnitta], there- fore the submittal is inccmplete. The Engineering Department may have additional comments after receipt of the analysis. Cc~ments generated relative to this study shall be made a condition of approval by this office. Provide a statement on the master plan specifying that all utilities are available and have been coordinated with all required utilities. Article VIII, Section 4C(17). Vinoent I. Finizio Provide pedestrian sidewalk and bicycle path for Knuth Road and parking lots. Appendix "C" Subdivision and Platting Regulations. ADDENDUM X Vincent A. Finizio MaS7, 1990 PLANNING DEPT.~ MEMORANDUM NO. 90-176 TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chairman & Members Planning & Zoning Board Timothy P. Cannon ~-C Interim Planning Director Tambri J. Heyden Assistant City Planner June 11, 1990 Tara Oaks PUD Land USe Element Amendment/Rezoning - F'il'e No. 473 Please be advised of the following Planning Department comments which should be made conditions of approval for the above-referenced request. Right-of-way shall be dedicated for Knuth Road and S.W. Congress Blvd. in accordance with Policy 2.6.3 of the Comprehensive Plan. Said right-of-way dedication should include any right-of-way that is necessary for expanded intersections. Any roadway improvements or recommendations by the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineering Division, pursuant to review under the Municipal Implementation Ordinance of the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance, shall be incorporated as a condition of project approval as well as the recommendations of the City's traffic consultant. 10. Knuth Road shall be constructed by the developer from its existing terminus near Stonehaven Drive south to Woolbright Road, including crossings over the L.W.D.D. L-25 and L-26 canals. S.W. Congress Boulevard shall be constructed from its existing terminus within the Lakes of Tara PUD westward to Knuth Road. As stated on the master plan, building heights shall be limited to two stories (30 feet maximum) to protect the integrity of the adjacent single family residences in the Lakes of Tara PUD, Stonehaven PUD and Quail Ridge. The size and exact location of each recreational amenity shall be specified within the two private recreation areas. Appendix C, Article IX, Section 8. The setbacks and living area stated on the master plan are minimum standards. Appendix B, Section 9.B. The number of access points shown on the master plan is acceptable only if the church pod will be under separate ownership. Article X-Parking Lots, Section 5-142(h){7). Sidewalks are required on both sides of all local and collector roads (Knuth Road and S.W. Congress Boulevard) or a sidewalk on one side and bike path on the other side~ Appendix C, Article X, Section 12, Article IX, Section 11; Appendix B, Section 9(A), Comprehensive Plan Policy 1.11.9 and 2.4.4. A ~ive foot limited access easement along Knuth Road and S.W. Congress Boulevard will be required to be shown on the plat of the project. Appendix C, Article IX, Section 3. ADDENDUM Y TO: Chairman & Members June 11, 1990 Planning & Zoning Board SUBJ: Tara Oaks The City can recommend to Palm Beach County that the developer's road impact fee contribute toward the construction of Knuth Road (Policy 2.6.2.). TAMBRI J . &~qEYDEN ~/ TJH:cp A:TARAOAKS Page 2 of ADDENDUM Y RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM a90-229 TO: FROM: VIA: SUBJECT: DATE: James Golden, Senicr Planner Planning Department John F. Wildner, Parks Division Superintendent .'~j^ / Charles C. Frederick, Director of Recreation & Parks Tara Cakes PUD April 23, 1990 The for 1) 2) 3) 4) Recreation & Park Department has reviewed the master plans the Tara Cakes PUD. The following comments are submitted: Based on 192 multifamily dwelling units, the recreation dedication requirement ms calculated to be 192 D.U. multiplied by .0150 acres = 2.88 acres. The developer has indicated that he wishes to apply for one half credit towards the dedication requirement. In order to qualify for this credit, the developer must show five separate recreation elements as indicated in the sub-division ordinance. 2.88 acres divided by 2- = 1.44 acres. Due to the small size of the requirement, we recommend a fee be paid in lieu of land. Prior to final plat, specifications must be shown demonstrating institutional quality recreation equipment is being installed. The private recreation area is shown mn the far southern corner of the site. For control and convenience, the developer should consider a more central location for the recreation area. JFW:jg AD~ ENDUM Z TO: PROM: DATE: RE: Timothy P. Cannon. Interim Planning Director and Tambri J. Hoyden, Assistant City Planner Scott A. Elk. Assistant City AttornEy ~/ June 1. 1990 Determination of Unified Control for Tara Oaks PUD, Boynton Beach Boulevard PCb and Fu~uth Road BCD In response to your memorandum datmd May 15, 1990 to, Jame~ A. Cherof, City Attorney, upon my r~vlow of %he above ~eferanoed Land I]~ Amendment and/or R~zoning Applica%ion~, I find that the application~ for the Boynton Beach Boulevard, BCD and t~e Knuth Road PCb contain affirmative ~tatemen~s agreeing to the Unified Control provision= of $~ction 6, Boynton Beach Code, wl~lch will allow the City in the future to impl~men% all requirements provided for under ~his 8action. Please note that in both =tat~mente of A~reement to Un~fl~d Control, Paragraph c, there is a typographical error which refers to "Sub Sac%ion 3A" and should refe~ to "SUb ~eotione A". A ~imilar agreement to th= Unified Control provisions of Section 6, Boynton Beach Code, should be obtained from the applicant for Tara Oak~ PUD, ~o insure that the City of. Boynton Beach may implement all Unified Control Requirements Of section 6, and implement all n~=essary Agreements, Co,tracts, ~eed Restrict~ons, and Sureties, acceptable to the City when appropriate. Please note t~a= this Memorandum does not constitute an examination by the City At=orney o£ all Agreements and evidence or unified control, nor a Certification by the City Attorney that any such Agreements and Evidence of unified Control meet the requirements of the Zoning Regulations. When such A~reements, Contracts, Deed Restrictions, and Sureties are deemed appropriate and required by the City, at that time I shall review the same and provide all comment~ and revisions, prior to my final Examination and Ceritification. If I may be of any further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to c0ntact me. BOYNTON MEMO2 CO: James A. Cherof, Cit~ Attorney AZ DENDUM~ AA Kilday 8- Associates Landscape Architects/Planners 1551 Forum Place Suite 100A West Palm Beach. Florida 33401 ~407) Co89-5522 ,' Fax: (407] 689-2592 TARA OAKS PUD APPLICANTS RESPONSE A. Whether the proposed rezoning would be ccnsistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies. The Planning Department shall also recommend limitations er requirements which would have to be imposed on subsequent development of the property, in order to comply with policies contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant contends that the proposed change in Land Use Designation is consistent with the policies cf the Plan. The attached water and sewer consumption calculalions indicate that the net result of the proposed changes anticipated by Tara Oaks PUD, Knuth Road PCD, and Boynton Beach Boulevard PCD will result in a total decrease in the amount of water and sewer required. Additionally, whereas the existing Plan allows for a total of 314 units to be built, the combined proposal results in a reduction of 122 units~ This reduction is consistent with the plans assumption that there will be a surplus of 539 units at buildout. B. Whether the proposed rezoning would be c(~ntrary to the established land use pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent or nearby districts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to az~ individual property owner as contrasted with the protection of the public welfare. The proposed masterplan undertakes to provide compatibility between the new project and adjacent land uses. All units have been located north of Congress Avenue. ~'he type and style and placement of the units is similar 7-o the project immediately to the eastr Clipper Cove. The ~]oper~y to the south of Congress Avenue adjacent to Lakes o~ Tara is designated for open space and a church, both passive land uses. Co Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezonmng desirable. There is an existing zoning approval for thi~ property which has never been built. The prime reasons for ~]ot building are the shape of the property (very narrow due to right-of-way for Knuth Road) and the cost of the construcuion of Knuth Road which is prohibitive but a responsibility of whomever ADDENDUM BB Tara Oaks PUD Applicant's Response Page 2 of 2 develops this property The proposed density has been ascertained utilizing the cost of this construction and working backward to determine a reasonable impact on a per unit basis. D. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility systems, roadw~ys, and other public facilities. As indicated by staff, this project meets all requirements of all traffic performanc.~ standards, County and City. Water and sewez consumption has been discussed previously. E. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, or would affect the pr3perty values of adjacent or nearby properties. As indicated by staff, the design of similar units abutting similar units results in no negative effect on any the master plan with on adjacent property surrounding areas. F. Whether the proper~y is physically and economically developable under the ~xisting zoning. As previously discussel the current land use designation and zoning approval is not economically developable due to the cost of the constructiDn o~ Knuth Road. 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 scale of the project is identical to the project on adjacent land to the east. H. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City for the proposed use, in districts where such use is already allowed. The proposed use allows for the consolidation of residential dwellings away from Boynton Beach Boulevard. The two companmon petitions currently allow for significant residential development in areas which are not desirable. The proposed plan allows for a reasonable use of this property without any adverse impacts on surrounding residences. Page 2 of ADDENDUM BB PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-163 TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Timothy P. Cannon ~,~ Interim Planning Director James J. Golden Senior City Planner June 4, 1990 SUBJECT: Request for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment submitted by Kilday & Associates for Bill R. Winchester Sun, nary: Kilday and Associates, agent for Bill R. Winchester, one of several affected property owners, are requesting an amendment to the text for Area 7.f of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Documents, as outlined in the attached legal advertisement in Exhibit "A". The nature of the change r~quested is to allow parcels less than three (3) acres size to be r~zoned to C-3 (community Commercial) instead of PCD (Planned Con~nercial Development) if they meet the intent of planned zoning district setbacks and greenbelt standards. The application was submitted ih connection with three recent applications for annexation, land use element amendment to "Local Retail Commercial" and rezoning to C-3 within the boundaries of Area 7.f. The three applications are Mall Corner, Inc., Retail Oil-Lube and Service Station ISee attached map in Exhibit "B"}. The Mall Corner, Inc, application was approved for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in May, while the Retail/Oil-Lube and Service Station applications have been continued until the July 10, 1990 meeting, pending the outcome of neootiations between the applicant and a contract purchaser who intends 5o submit an application for a Development of Regional Impact. Issues/Discussion: There may be specific situations, such as Mall Corner, Inc. and Retail. Oil-Lube where, owing to small parcel size and where there is different ownership or control from surrounding properties, it may be warranted to rezone 5o C-3 instead of PCD, if certain limitations are placed on the development of the property. However, the text amendment proposed by the applicant would allow larger properties to be divided into parcels less than 3 acres s~ze and there would not be a limit 5o the number of smaller parcels that could be created and developed by differenr property owners, such as the proposed Service Station application. Recommendation: In ordez to address the concerns outlined under "Issues/Discussion" above and to allow properties under 3 acres size to be rezoned to C-3 where warranted, it is recommended that Area 7.f be modified to read as follows: 7.f. Incorporated and Unincorporated Parcels Bounded by Congress Avenue, Old Boynton Road~ Knuth Road, and L.W.D.D. L-24 Canal This area contains a number of parcels in an unincorporated enciave~ all of which should be annexed. These parcels have unique characteristics, since there are relatively few owners, the area ms bounded by collector and arterial roads, and the area is adjacent to a regional mall and two community shopping centers~ Consequently, the City should encourage intensive commercial development in this area. Particular requirements of the City should be that these parcels be annexed prior to development, the parcels be developed as planned zoning districts, that the City approve any Developments of Regional Impact (including areawide DRIs) for these parcels, and that development not exceed the capacity of public facilities which serve these parcels~ Page 1 of ADDENDUM CC PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-163 TO: Chairman & Members, June 4, 1990 Page 2 Planning & Zoning Board 3JG:cp It should also be recognized, however, that several parcels exist which are smaller in size than the minimum acreage required for rezoning to a planned zoning district. These parcels are under separate ownership and control from surrounding parcels and they could not be developed as planned zoning districts unless they were included in a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). Therefore, it is recommended that any such parcels of less than 3 acres which existed at the time of the adoption cf the Comprehensive Plan be allowed to be rezoned as standard zoning districts, consistent with the land use designation shown on the Future Land Use Map. The commercial zoned parcels should also be required to meet the PCD zoning district greenbelt standards where there is frontage along a public right-cf-way. In order to minimize land use conflicts with the residential land uses which lie to the west, those parcels which abut the east side of Knuth Road should be placed in the Office Commercial land use category. The City should require that commercial development of these properties include the provision of adequate buffers to protect the residential land uses which ~ie to the west. High Density Residential or mixed-use residential and commercial development should be considered to be an alternative land use, if roadway capacity proves to be a problem. Residential densities up to 10.8 dwelling units per acre would be permitted in this case. The rights-of-way for Congress Avenue, Knuth Road, Old Boynton Road, abutting this area should also be annexed, as well as any platted Palm Beach Farms roads within the area. GOLDEN NOTE: Pursuant to Section 163.3174(4)(d), Florida Statutes, the Planning and Zoning Board, as the Local Planning Agency, is required no make a recommendation to the City Commission with respect to these proposed amendments with the Comprehensive Plan. A:PMg0-163 Page 2 of ADDENDUM CC BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-206 (Revised) June 6, 1990 TO: THRU: FROM: Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Planning Director D.on Jaeger, Building & Zoning Dire~tor~ Michael E. Haag, Zoning & Site Developm~t Administrauor F RE: SITE PLAN - LEISUREVILLE E~Tk~%NCE WALL SIGN Upon review of the above mentioned project, the following comments must be addressed in order to conform with Boynton Beach City codes: Provide a site plan drawing showing the proposed wall and sign. Identify the property line and locate the wall sign by giving a dimension to the wall from two adjacent property lines. Show location of sign complying with the visual obstruction section of the zoning code, Section 4.F (no sign, hedge or shrubbery to be located within twenty-five feet [25'] of the intersection of two [2] streets). 2. Show on the plan the width and length of the wall signage. Show on the plans the location of proposed landscape material or the relocation of existing landscape material on the site. To facilitate the permitting process, the following information should be included with your documents submitted to the Building Department for review and permitting: Ail signage must comply with the City of Boynton Beach Sign Code. ADDENDUM DD BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-248 June 6, 1990 TO: Timothy Cannon, Interim Planning Directo~ THRU: Don Jaeger, Building & Zoning Director~ '//. FROM: Michael E. Haag, Zoning & Site Develop~nt Administrator RE: SI~ PI~AN - QUANT~3~4 pAI~KM/~NUFACTURING BUILDING Upon review of the above mentioned project, the following comments must be addressed in order to conform with Boynton Beach City codes: Provide a copy of the South Florida Water Management District permit for modification of the existing permit for the project. 2. Provide a copy of the Lake Worth Drainage District permit for the proposed work at the site. 3. show the building setback dimensions from the property line ~o the face of the building overhang on all sides of the building. 4. Show Dn the site plan and landscape plan drawings the twenty-five foot (25') wide peripheral greenbelt that is required along the west side of the property. I recommend that the developer establish and submit for Community Appearance Board (CAB) approval, a typical greenbelt landscape plan that will crea~e a harmonious unified appearance for the projecu and will be used by the sites that have to meet the greenbelt requirements. 5. Specify on the plans what color HC-170 represents as noted on the dumps~er enclosure detail drawings. 6. State on the plans the total number of workers that will be employed at the building. 7. Identify on the plans the width of all landscape islands and perimeter landscape areas (minimum width of abutting property landscape area if 2'6" and 5~0'' for landscape areas that are adjacen~ to public right-of-way). All vehicle use areas require a continuous visual barrier made of hedge landscape material complying with the requirements of the landscape code. 8. Identify the building elevation view drawings with the correct compass direction. 9. State on the plans that the construction of the stairs, landings, handrails and guardrails shown on the plans will comply with the applicable codes. 10. Show on the plans a handicapped accessibility "walkway": leading to the building entrance from the public right-of-way as required by the handicapped manual. 11. Show on the plans handicapped accessibility "walkway" leading to the entrance of the building from each handicapped parking space. Provide detailed drawings of the required curb cu~s and/or curb ramps. Show spot elevations along the handicapped "walkway" and provide a detailed drawing of the finish of the material proposed for the walkway. The material and construction mus~ comply with the requirements of the handicapped manual. (cont'd) Page 1 of AddendumEE Memo: Timothy Cannon Re: Quantum Park Mfg. Bldg. June 6, 1990 Page Two 12. 13. 14. 15. Show the location and specify the width and length of the level platform required at the entrance ro the building. Specify on the plans seven feet (7') from the grade to the bottom of the handicapped parking signage. Drawings submitted for final sign-off must match in every respecu the plans approved by the city boards during the approval process of the pro3ec~. An applicant that receives approval of plans by the city boards without the benefit of review and comments by the Technical Review Board (TRB) will be required to submit a letter (signed and sealed by nhe pYoject designer[s]) that describes and identifies the loc&tio~ of the changes that were shown on the board approved drawings and not reviewed by tbs TRB. The letter must be attached to the plans that are submitted for final sign-off. The changes will be subject to full review by the TRB staff prior to final si~n-off. Provide percenuage of native species for shrubs proposed to be planted on site. Surina~ cherry and Indian hawthorne are not native. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Specify extent of seeding with bahia/rye mix on the undeveloped south portion of properuy. Show the location and specify the size of easements located on the property. Plantings within an easement will require approval from the parties that have use of the easement. Parking area lighting computation have readings of less than .5 in portions of the southwest ~nd northwest corners of the parking lot which are unacceptable per parking lot specifications of the city. Specify lighting systems to be photoelectric controlled. Ail signage on site must comply with Boyn~on Beach sign code and existing sign program fox Quantum Park. Show on plans fire lanes to be clearly marked with signs and striping or a combination of both which must comply with city standards per parking lot ordinance, section 5-142 M. meh:eaf Page 2 of ADDENDUM EE QUANPF~F. SDD ENGIN~ING DEPARTMENT M]~RANDUM NO. 90-159 June 1, 1990 J. Scott Miller City Manager Vinoent A. Finizio Acting Assistant to the City Engineer T.R.B. Cu~u~rlts Quantum Sites 41C & 42A ACAI Associates, Inc. Rossi & Malavasi Engineers, Inc. /n accordance with the City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Site Plan Approval Process and Chapter 5, Article X, Boyn~on Beach Parking Lot Regula- tions, the applicant for the above referenced pro3ect shall suk~it the following technical data, information and plan revisions. 1. Handicap stall striping shall be revised to cc~ply with current Florida Building Code. Article X, Section 5-142 (k) "Handicap Requirements". Delete one of the ingress/egress driveways, Section 5-142 (h) "Driveway" specifies in Section 5-142 (h)7 that, "No more than two driveways shall be permitted from any property". .... "in no instance shall the number of driveways exceed two (2) on each street". Reference Section 5-145 "Variances to this Article" should the applicant desire te seek relief from this code section. Provide a No Left Turn sign at the northernmost ingress/egress driveway to be utilized in conjunction with the proposed stop sign, or place a "One Way Sign" in the median directly opposite this driveway. 4. Parking facility lighting to be controlled by p~to cell activator in accordance with Section 5-142 [g) "Lighting Standards". VAF/ck cc: Jim Golden, Senior City Planner Vincent A. Finizio MEMORANDUM Utilities #90-356 TO: Timothy Cannon Interim PIanning Director FROM: John A~ Guidry %~ Director of Uttlitles~ DATE: June 5, 1990 SUBJECT: TRB Review Quantum Park Manufacturing Building We can approve this project, subject to the following conditions: Show all utility easements to include fire hydrants. Only those tree species approved by the Utility Depart- ment may be placed in utility easements· Adjust landscape plan to svoid conflicts. Fire hydrants must be installed to within 200' of all points of the building. Relocate hydrant away from build- ing to right-of-way area and add a second fire hydrant near the riser on the fire line. New water mains shall be cleaned with a soft-sided swab, prior to testing, two passes. Please affix this note to the plans. Irrigation is not to be supplied by City water. Relocate the proposed gate valve shown at the main to a location isolating the two fire hydrants, and add an additional gate valve at the limits of our easement and responsibility before the double check valves. Provide lette~ stating proposed water and sewage demands and, if water is to be used in the manufacturing process. We recommend use of dual backflow preventers in parallel so service is not interrupted during testing. dmt Michael Kazunas PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-172 TO: Chairman & Members Planning & Zoning Board THRU: Timothy P. Cannon ~ Interim Planning Director FROM: Tambri J. Heyden Assistant City Planner DATE: June 6, 1990 SUBJECT: Quantum Park Manufacturing Building Site Plan and Use Approval (Lots 41C and 42A) - File No. 503 Please be advised of the following Planning Department comments with respect to the above-referenced request for site plan and use approval. Submit a copy of the cross access agreemenn prior to "final sign-off" for review by the City's legal department to provide for the cross parking areas, access aisles and driveways shown on the site plan. The alternative would be to submit a unity of title for the two parcels. Chapter 19, Article II, Section 19-17(K). Phase II will require a future site plan modification. Chapner 19, Article II, Section 19-17. Parking for manufacturing uses within a Planned Industrial District is based upon the maxzmum number of employees on shift plus ample parking for visitors. The calculations on the site plan and page 4 of the application need no be amended to reflect maximum number of employees rather than square footage. The provision of 126 parking spaces as shown on the site plan would enable a maximum number of 168 employees at this facility. Appendix A, Section 7.B.2. No signs are shown on the plans submitted. Site plan aRproval will be required for all signs to include location, elevations, and details such as size, materials, colors, advertising and letter style, consistent with the previously approved Quantum Park sign program. Section 21-14(M)2. The sidewalk on the west side of Park Ridge Boulevard, shown only on the landscape plan, should be added to the site plan and paving and drainage plan consistent with Appendix C, Article IX, Section II. The applicant is seeking to amend the list of permitted uses at the Quantum Park of Commerce P.I.D. as referenced in their letter of request. Electronics research and development and manufacturing is proposed on lots 41C and 42A, designated for "Industrial" use on the Quantu~ Park master plan. This ~ype of use would be able to locate elsewhere in the City in the M-1 (Light Industrial) zoning district under Appendix A-Zoning, Section 8.A.l,a.(15), electronics manufacturing and b.(12), research and development laboratories; without environmental review. Therefore, it is the Planning Department's reco~endation that it would be appropriate to permit this use on those parcels designated "Industrial" on the mas~er plan for Quantum Park. Since the contract purchase~ has'not be~.n disclosed, environmental review may be required prior to receiving an occupational license if, consistent with Appendix A, Section 7.E.2., it is determined that hazardous materials are either used, handled, stored, generated or displayed in connection with the proposed use as defined by 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261. Appendix A, Section 7.E.2. Page 1 of ADDENDL~4HH PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-172 TO: Chairman & Members Planning & Zoning Board SUBJ: Quantum Park -2- June 6, 1990 The number and location of driveways shown on the site plan exceeds that which is permitted by Article K-Parking Lots, Section 5-142(h)7 and Appendix A, Section 7-P.I.D. regulations, H.3. The Technical Review Board recommends that the middle driveway be eliminated and that the plans prepared for "final sign-off" reflect this recon~endation. The plans submitted for review do not reflect a 25 foot required peripheral greenbelt (Appendix A, Section 7,H.17.). The parking proposed along the west property line encroaches within this greenbelt. At the June 5, 1990 Technical Review Board meeting, the applicant stated that he could provide the required greenbelt wldthon the revised plans submitted for "final sign-off" without substantially altering ths parking lot layout and design. With respect to the design of the greenbelt, it is recommended that a typical landscape detail be submitted to the C.A.B., as was required of Safety-Kleen, to be implemented by this and other peripheral lot owners within the P.I.D.. The plans submitted for "final sign-of~" shall reflect the building footprint which corresponds with the colored elevations chat were revised for the C.A.B. submital. Otherwise, a site plan modification will be required. Code of Ordinances, Section 19-18. TAMBRI 3.~HEYDE~ TJM:cp A:PM90-172 Page 2 of ADDENDUM~ RECREATION & PARK MEMORANDUM ~90-299 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Timothy Cannon, Interim Planning Director Kevin J. Hallahan, Forester/Horticulturist Quantum Park - Sites 41C and 42A Manufacturing Building Site Plan June 6, 1990 The applicant should show on the landscape plan that any existing trees in the read R.O.W. will to on the site. the areas be relocated The hedge along the road R.O.W. must be 36" in height at the time of planting. 50% of the trees and 30% of the shrubs/bushes must be native species. The property adjacent To the canal should be landscaped with a buffer planting of 25' wide to screen the adjacent Motorola site. The Quantum Park should submit a "typical" 25' wide landscape a buffer plan and a 40' wide landscape buffer plan. An irrigation source should be installed to water the adjacent lot to establish the grass seen and help prevent blowing sand. KJH:ad RECEIVED JUN DE_PT. ADDH~DUM II Beginning a~ th= Southeas: corner of S~ction 19, To~nn=hip S~uth, Ran~ 43 East; Thence North 00'59'39' West along East line of ~aid Sectio~ 19, a distance cf 272S.ll fe~t to.% pD~nt on th~ Westerly rlcht-cf-way llne of Con~ Avenue, ~a~= poln~ being the principai poin: and place of ~sinning Thenc~ South (3'32'54" W~t a distance c~ ~S.51 feet =o = point; thenc~ North 00'~9'39' W~st a distanc~ o~ 609.99 fe~t to a point: ~henc~ North 85'05'26" East a distanc~ of 430.00 feet to a point; thenc~ South 46'17'06" East & distance of 56.11 feet to a point point an~ place of beginning. TOGBT~EK WITH the Nonexc!u~iva perpetua! right, privi!asa =nd PARCEL 2. BOYNTON BEACH ACCBBS (South Ac=ass) A parc~! of lan~ lying ~n Section 19. Township 45 South, 43 Ease, PaLn Beach County, F!ori~a, being more particu!~rly described as follows: Com.=encmn~ at the Southeast corner of =aid Section 19, thenc~ North 00'59'39' west a ~istanc~ of !262.20 feet to a point; thence North 89'46'34" cf 60.O! feat to a point on the Wa~t right-of-way ConcraKs Avenue [S.R. ~07); thence North 00'59'39" ~est"=!ong ~ai~ West lin= a distanc~ of !334.63 feet to the principal po~t th~nc~ North 00'59'~9" Wast ~ ~isuznc= of ~0.O! feet cn the aforementioned Wes~ !ina; =hence South 0O'~9'39' PARCEL (North A Parcel of land lying in Section 19, Township 45 South, ~3 ~ast0 ~a!m B~ach County, Florida, beln~ ~or~ pa=tlcularly Page 1 of ADDENDUM JJ alonN :aid West line a distanc~ of 90.01 feet to the Point cf Beginning. Page 2 of ADDENDUM Jj BUILDING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-249 June 5, 1990 TO: Timothy Cannon, Interim Planning Director ~i~h~g~'H~id~i~gZ~n~eO~~inistrator RE: SITE PLAN MODIFICATION - BOYNTON BEACH PROMENADE (Renovation) Upon review of the above mentioned project~ the following comments must be addressed in order to conform with Boynton Beack City codes: Provide a recent survey of the site. Ail drawings and/or documents submitted for public record and preparedb¥ a design professional shall show original raised seal (legible) and signature of a Florida registered design professional responsible for the drawings. Identify on the plans the color of all new exterior finish material located on the site including the signage and awning. Show on the plans the computations used to determine the number of required parking spaces. Identify the total number of parking spaces required and provided. Show on ~he drawings the location of the objec~ identified as G-3. Provide detailed drawings of objects G-13 and G-20. Show on the plans the location and type of signage proposed for the new tenant spaces located on the west side of the building. Provide a note on the drawing stating that the existing free standing sign located on the site will be removed prior to the completion of the new work. 8. Provide percentage of native species for site landscaping. 10. Provide a continuous visual barrier to screen on site vehicle use area from the public right-of-way (mall access drive). Chalkas, ligustrum and buttonwood hedges are shown no be removed without replacement. Show a continuous visual barrier to screen on site vehicle use area from west of property abutting a retention pond. In order to facilitate the permitting process, the following information should be included with your documents submitted to the Building Department for review and permitting: Ail structural working drawings must be prepared, signed and sealed by a Florida registered architect and/or engineer. Ail signage must comply with the sign code. The numbe~ o~ free suanding signs shown on the site exceeds the number allowed by the sign code. I recommend obtaining a sign code and revisit the signage shown and submit drawings complying with the sign code. This project will require Community Appearance Board approval for the architectural features and slgnage. Provide written verification from all parties which have use of the easement where the new free standing sign will be located that the location of the new sign will not conflict with their use of the easement. Written verification must link specifically with the drawings submitted for review and ~permit tin,g_~_ meh: eaf ADDENDUM KK PROMENAD. SDD ENGINEERING DEP~ M~ORANDUM NO. 90-162 June i. 1990 TO: J. Scott Miller City Manager FR~: Vincent A. Finizio Acting Assistant to the City Engineer RE: T.R.B. Comment s Site Plan Mcdification Boyn~on Beach Pr~Tenade Renovation MT Fuller Architects In accordance with City of Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances. Chapter 19. Section 19-17 "Site Plan Review and Approval" including Chapter 5, Article X "Boynton Beach Parking Lot Regulations", Section 5-142 "R~quired Irsprovements", the applicant for the above referenced project shall provide the following information, technical data and plan revisions. The "Stop Signs" shown ~n Sheet ~2, do not ccmply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices pursuant to Florida Statute 316.0747, Depar~rent of Transportation Standard Specifications and Section 5-142 [g) "Traffic Sign Standards". Decorative atop signs are prohibited. Utilize a standard R-l-1 stop sign mounted seven (7) feet ~bove grade to bottc~ of the sign. Sign shall be grouted in place so as not to becc¢~ a hurricane hazard. Stop signs are improperly located and shall be located at property line. Handicap signs to be mounted seven (7) feet above grade to kottc~ of sign in conforn~nce with the latest edition of the Accessibility Requireu~nts Manual, Depsrnmen5 of Ccmnunity Affairs. Section 4-142 (k) "Handicap Depressed grassed drainage areas shall not be ber~d as depicted on Sheet UL [ and PL 2. Trees may be planted within grassed s~ale inverts. Revise landscape plan ko c~pli~ent previously designed and approved drainage gradients and contours. Provide construction plans and striping details for the additional parking stalls. Details shall include raised continuous 13~" x 6" × 8" concrete curbing in conformance with Section 5-142 Ig) "Standards". Provide $ current survey whiqh is a required submittal document for the Site Plan Review process. VAF/ck cc: Jim Golden, Sanior City Planner ILECEIVi D JUN I 19.~r PLANNING DEPT, ADDENDUM LL PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-170 TO: THRU: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Timothy P. Cannon ~, Interim Planning Director Tambri J. Heyden Assistant City Planner June 7, 1990 Boynton Beach Promenade site Plan Modification (renovation) - File No. 506 Please be advised of the following Planning Department con~nents with respect to the above-referenced request: Provide a scale on the elevation sheet. Chapter 19, Article II, Section 19~t7[i). Provide elevations or details for the ribbon accent on the lift station and dumps~er. Chapter 19, Article II, Section 19-17(1). 4o Site plan revlew la required for all freestanding signs such as the Gl, Gl0, Gl1, Gl6 and Gl9 signs proposed, however the Building Department must be contacted with respect to compliance of these signs and the directory signs with the Sign Code. Approval of the location of these signs is contingent upon city Commission approval of a sign variance. Chapter 21, Section 21-9 and Section 21-14(E)(3) and (8). After researching plans on file in the Building Department to compare the existing parking lot layout to what is proposed, it appears that there is a net increase of 19 parking spaces. Since a survey or "as-built" site plan was not submitted, the change in the number of parking spaces should be verified. Appendix A, Section ll.A.1. Label the sign details on pages 1 and 2 using the symbols from the key on sheet A-1. The elevations on sheet 3 are to be labeled. The restaurant parking calculations on page 4 of the site plan application should be revised ~o reflect Appendix A-Zoning, Section ll.H.10,11 and 16.d.(2),(18) and (20). At the June 5, 1990 Technical Review Board meeting, the Technical Review Board unanimously reco~ended against the modifications ~o the median within the north mall access road. The change requested would result in conflicting turn movements, via a "shared" turn lane. Westbound vehicles making a left into the rear of the Boyn~on Beach Promenade would oppose eastbound vehicles making a left into the First American Plaza and T.G.I. Friday's parcels, If the City Commission approves the median modification, documentation shall be provided which verifies that the owners of the Boynton Beach Mall will authorize this construction within their access road. Section 19-21(a). Page 1 of ADDENDUM MM PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 90-170 TO: chairman & Members Planning & Zoning Board SUBJ: Boynuon Beach Promenade -2- June 6, 1990 The Technical Review Board also unanimously recommended against the requested changes to the parking spaces and adjacent access aisle near the northern, main entrance to the shoppin~ center. The existing design is preferred over the proposed change because i~ does not permit vehicles to back out into the access aisle/fire lane along the front of the shopping center, vehicles pulling out of this parking area have limited visibility of vehicles turning into the shopping center. Section t9-21[a). TJH:cp A:PM90-170 Page 2 of ADDENDUM~/~M