Loading...
Minutes 06-05-89MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD - PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCES RE ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS AND WHOLESALE TIRE SALES, HELD IN COMMISSION CHamBERS, PRIME BANK PLAZA, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1989 AT 5:00 P. M. PRESENT Robert Walshak, Chairman Nathan collins, Jr., Vice Chairman Harold Blanchette Marilyn Huckle Daniel Richter Carl Zimmerman Murray Howard, Alternate (Voting) ABSENT Gary Lehnertz Carmen Annunziato, Planning Director Raymond Rea, City Attorney Chairman Walshak called the meeting to order at 5:02 P. M. Following the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, he introduced the Planning Director, City Attorney, and the Board Members. City Manager Cheney and Owen Anderson, Executive Vice President, Greater Boynton Beach Chamber of Commerce were in the audience. AGENDA Mrs. Huckle moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Collins, to accept the agenda as presented. Motion carried 7-0. ANNOUNCEMENTS Comprehensive Plan Mr. Annunziato announced that the Comprehensive Plan got to Tallahassee on May 30th. He informed Chairman Walshak that the City would get the Plan back in about ninety days, but he will be in contact with the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) many times between now and then. If there are any problems, he will be visiting the DCA. Chairman Walshak asked if it could have a lot of correc- tions. Mr. Annunziato answered, "Possibly." At that point, he said the City Commission will have sixty days to adopt the Comprehensive Plan. In that sixty days, the Commission must address all of the objections of DCA as well as the comments. Mr. Annunziato clarified for Chairman Walshak that as a part of the adopted plan, the P&Z Board must ~ ...................................... ~t T ................. MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 5, 1989 address the DCA's comments in writing before adoption by the City Commission. PURPOSE OF MEETING For purposes of the record, City Attorney Rea said the City was re-presenting two ordinances that were discussed at one of the Board's meetings in May regarding adult entertain- ment establishments and wholesale tire sales. The issues were being re-presented to the Board again because one of the parties (Frontier Restaurant) that is presently suing the City for the adult entertainment Ordinance has taken issue with the manner the City used for advertising the Ordinances. If there was a procedural defect in the advertising, Attorney Rea said the City was trying to remedy it. The City adver- tised them in map form, according to the provisions of 166, which deals specifically with zoning Ordinances. As such, the City called for public hearings today at 5:00 P. M. to see if there would be any additional comment pursuant to this advertisement. City Attorney Rea hoped the Board would recommend that the City Commission pass the Ordinances. Ordinance No. 89-17 Adult Entertainment "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, READOPTING THE PROVISIONS OF ORDINANCE 89-12; ADOPTING REASONS AND FINDINGS FOR ZONING REGULATIONS RELATED TO ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS; AMENDING SECTION A - ZONING TO REDUCE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS AND TO APPAY~SAID DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS TO RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, PUBLIC USAGE DISTRICTS OR RECREATION DISTRICTS; PROVIDING FOR ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS AS PER- MITTED HSES WITHIN C-3, C-4, PID AND M-1 ZONING DISTRICTS; PROVIDING~THAT EACH AND EVERY OTHER PROVISION OF APPENDIX a - Z6NING N°T SPECIFICALLY AMENDED HERE~N SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE~D EFFECT AS PREVIOUSLY ENACTED; PROVIDING FOR A CONFLICT CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING AUTH©RITY T~ CODIFY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" With regard: to the first Ordinance before the Board, City Attorney Re~ said he added a few more "Whereas" clauses to readopt the findings that were presented before the City Commission at the last meeeting. Otherwise, both were the identical Ordinances the Board had previously seen. - 2 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 5, 1989 Mrs. Huckle thought Mr. Zimmerman had questioned what was wrong with 1600 feet, and she thought it had been deemed that it was not as defensible. City Attorney Rea answered that the Supreme Court had established 1,000 feet as the rule of thumb. They were stating that to use something larger than that would be inappropriate and would be too great a distance. Mrs. Buckle inquired how close the City was complying to the rule of thumb. City Attorney Rea replied, "Pretty close, because the 1,000 foot limits of the Ordinance have been justified in case after case." In fact, some are 750 and 500 feet. Mrs. Huckle asked whether the location had been challenged. as far as putting restrictions as to what areas of the City these might go ~n. City Attorney Rea replied that the case law boils down to the fact that the City has to provide some type of location for them in a City this size. However, you cannot limit it in such a fashion that no facilities can go in, and you also cannot limit it to a conditional use. Mrs. Buckle questioned whether it would have a percentage or ratio as to the geographic size of the City. Attorney Rea replied that is generally interpreted on a case by case basis. Mrs. Huckle asked if the City can write its own r~les as long as it has the public's input. Attorney Rea answered~ "Pretty much." The way the Ordinance was drafted, the biggest location will be the Planned Industrial Developments (PIDs). Under'the Supreme Court's rulings, you can p~t them wherever you want, and they have to compete in the market place like everybody else. If they want to go in, they have to go in an industrial district and compete with everybody else. One area that is supposed to be designated in the City is Quantum Park. Mrs. Buckle wondered what Deutsch-Ireland's response to this was. City Attorney Rea recalled that their Vice President, John Halliday, came to the last City Commission meeting when the Ordinance was officially adopted. The Vice President was annoyed, because he felt it would give them a public relations problem. Chairman Walshak had listened to Mr. Halliday's concern, which was that people were under the impression that Quantum Park wanted these kinds of things. Chairman Walshak said that was not the case. The City did not insinuate that Quantum Park had to take the adult entertainment. It was merely where it was acceptable. It would be up to the devel- opers of Quantum Park to say "yes" or "no". If it MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 5, 1989 legally allowed there, Mrs. Huckle wondered if Deutsch-Ireland would have much say about keeplng adult entertainment out. City Attorney Rea answered that Deutsch- Ireland can sell the property to whomever they wish and also sell it for whatever use they wish. Mrs. Huckle inquired whether there had been any flack from the other designated areas. City Attorney Rea replied, "None whatsoever." He informed Mr. Blanchette that one of the areas designated was the Boynton Beach Mall. Mr. Blanchette felt it was impossible that would happen because the Mall Ks a place for families. Chairma~ Walshak reminded the Members that %he issue before them was whether they wanted to accept the Ordinance or not. Mrs. Huckte was vague about the location on South Congress Avenue, near 1-95. Mr. Annunziato informed her that it would be east of Congress Avenue almost at 1-95 along the Rel property (for example). Mr. Blanchette asked if they had to provide any place at all in the City for this. City Attorney Rea advised that they did. Vice Chairman Collins inquired what the feelings of the Police Department were, based on the areas that were presented. City Attorney Rea did not believe the Police commented. He added that the City implemented the Palm Beach County Sheriff's studies on crime and pretty well used the same approach the County is using. Vice Chairman Collins asked if the Police Department was involved at all. City Attorney Rea answered, "No." As no one wished to speak in favor or in opposition to the proposed Ordinance, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mrs. Huckle moved to find Ordinance No. sistent with the Comprehensive Plan and to the City Commission as proposed. Mr. motions and the motion carried 7-0. 89-12 to be con- that it be submitted Howard seconded the (SEE PAGE 6 OF THESE MINUTES FOR CONTINUATION.) Ordinance No. 89-15 Re: Wholesale Tire Sales and Service "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OP THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING SECTION A-ZONING. TO PROVIDE FOR TIRE SALES AND SERVICE, WITHOUT MAJOR REPAIRS AS A PERMITTED USE WITHIN THE C-3 DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PERMITS FOR SAID USE; PROVIDING THAT EAC~ AND EVERY OTHER PROVISION OF APPENDIX A-ZONING NOT SPECIFICALLY AMENDED HEREIN SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT AS PREVIOUSLY - 4 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 5, 1989 ENACTED; PROVIDING FOR A CONFLICTS CLAUSE; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; PROVIDING AUTHORITY TO CODIFY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Chairman Walshak asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of or in opposition to the ordinance, and there was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Blanchette noted it said tire sales and service, and he questioned whether that meant complete service. Mr. Annunziato explained that it originally just talked about tire sales. It was because of a request for a project along ~ypoluxo Road, east of Congress Avenue. The nature of that business was to not only put tires on cars and sell tires but to service vehicles. In the City's opinion, to go forward with just tire sales would have defeated the real intent of what was being requested. Therefore, it is tire sales and service without major repairs. Mr. Annunziato used Firestone as an example of the services. Chairman Walshak determined it was any services except auto frame maintenance. There was further discussion. Mr. Richter thought it would open it up to the new trend across the country in commercial areas where there are auto service centers. Mr. Richter moved that Ordinance No. 89-15 be presented as submitted to the city Commission. Mr. Blanchette seconded the motion, and the motion carried 5-2. Mrs. Huckle and Mr. Zimmerman voted against the motion. OTHER Workshop Re Chapter 19, Thursday, June 15, 1989 at 7:00 P. M. Chairman Walshak noted that there has been a lot of discussion about Chapter 19, and he wondered if the Board could have a joint workshop with the City Commission to see if some verbiage could be changed in Chapter 19 to stream- line the process and take out some of the ambiguities and paragraphs that are in direct conflict with one another. For instance, the Chapter does not tell what the appeal process iSo Mr. Blanchette was not in favor of a meeting. Mr. Richter thought there should be a meeting, as he felt it would speed up the process. The language will have to support that. - 5 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 5, 1989 Vice Chalrman Collins thought they should do whatever it would take to speed up the process. He had no problem with a joint meeting with the city Commission. Chairman Walshak apprised the Members that several paragraphs in the Chapter conflict with other paragraphs, and he thought they should be stressed. Mrs. Buckle had no feelings either way and wished to remain neutral. Mr. Howard felt it should be streamlined, and he thought one workshop should be sufficient. thought they Would get further if just the it first instead of having the two ~roups. thought they could accomplish more~ if the would join the Board in the workshop. MS. Howard asked how the City Commission felt about this. Vice Mayor Olenik felt Mr. zimmerman had a good point. Be thought the Board should go through Chapter 19 and have their recommendations ready for the meeting with the City Commission. There was further discussion about the Chapter. Prior statements were repeated, and a date for the meeting was also discussed. Mr. Zimmerman Board discussed Chairman Walshak City Commission Thursday~ June 15, 1989 at 7:00 P. M. was agreeable with the Members as the date for the workshop. Ordinance NO. 89-12 Adult Entertainment (Continued) John Halliday, Vice President of Sales and Marketing, Deutsch-Ireland Properties, Quantu~ Associates. received a phone call at about 4:00 P. M. from a citizen informing him about the meeting this afternoon. He was delayed because of traffic. Chairman Walshak informed him that the meeting had been advertised in the newspaper. Mr. Balliday thought some of the Members were in attendance or were aware of the fact that he voiced the objections of Deutsch-Ireland to the anticipated use approval of adult entertainment facilities in Planned Industrial Development (PID) zoning. He was here to reenforce that statement, and a letter h~d been drafted to Mayor Moore. Mr. Balliday knew it might be a desire on the City's part to shield it- self by placin~ ~du~t entertainment in areas where they feel it would be difficult for that particular use to occur. Mr. Balliday informed the Members that DSutsch-Ireland discussed with its Attorneys certain problems that may occur if someone were to come to us wanting to buy land for that MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 5, 1989 particular purpose, and they were told there was a very strong possibility that they would be very hard pressed to prevent the purchase of property in Quantum for that speci- fic use. If someone were to come in and buy a lot and put in a restaurant, for example, and at some time sell their interest in that property to an operator of an adult entertainment facility, Deutsch-Ireland would not be able to prevent that use because it is a permitted use in that zoning. Mr. ~alliday stressed that they have expended tremendous dollars nationally and internationally to try and elevate both the City of Boynton Beach and Quantu~ Corporate Park's image in the community, and they are very concerned about the potential negative impact this will have. It might not seem like a lot, but Mr. Halliday said all it takes is one individual who sees 13,000 employees in an area like that with immediate access to 1-95 and all ~he great things Deutsch-Ireland is putting into the property as a potential windfall. He referred to areas where "high class strip joints" are located on Federal Highway. Mr. Halliday emphasized that a definite loophole in the laws is being created here, and it is of tremendous concern to them. They have no intention of ever approving anything like it, but they do not know if it will be possible for them to prevent someone who is able to work with the laws from circumventing their efforts to prevent it. Mrs. Huckle was very glad Mr. ~alliday came because she had asked the City Attorney how Quantum was reacting to the designation of an area there. She informed Mr. ~alliday that she was told Quantum is a private property owner and can refuse to sell to someone. Mr. Halliday agreed with Mr. Zimmerman that the second sale would be the risk. Mrs. Huckle was glad Mr. Halliday's remarks were on the record. Attorney Rea advised that Quantum could always put in any type of deed restrictions they want when they convey a parcel of property. Chairman Walshak told Mr. Halliday the ipublic hearing had been closed, and the Board voted 7-0 t~ recommend approval of Ordinance No. 89-12. He was sorry Mr. ~alliday did not arrive sooner. - 7 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 5 , 1989 ADJOURNMENT The meeting properly adjourned at Patricia Ramseyer ~ / Recording Secretar~ / (One Tape) ~ 5:33 P. M. TO: VIA: FROM: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM June 5, 1989 Jim Golden Senior Planner George N. Hunt ~LL~ Acting City Engineer.~/lY.~ ~.. VincentA. Finizio Engineering Department T.R.B. Con~nents Bedding Barn Walter A. Cornnell Engineer, Inc. Randall E. Stofft Architects Provide Drainage Calculations in accordance with Boynton Beach Parking Lot Regulations, Article X, Section 5-142 Required Drainage Calculations. Include the Geotechnlcal On-Site Percolation Test data used in the calculations. (2nd request). 2. Place the following note on Walter Cornnell plan sheet 2 of 4. During construction of the driveway, within the State of Florida Rights-of-Way,' lane closures will be performed utilizing a "traffic control work zone safety plan" in conformance with the latest edition of the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and further be approved by the City Engineers' office prior to construction. Section 5-140 (a), (c) Safety Objectives Chapter 19, Section 19-17 {k) Required Engineering and Technical Data. Appendix "A" Zoning, Section 4-N Performance Standards - Constructed so as not to be a nuisance or hazard to persons. VAF:Jb Vincent A. Finizto Engi neeri ng Department ADDENDUM A-1 TO: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato, Planning Director Beddin9 Barn - File No 253 Site Plan - Staff Comments June 7, 1989 e The buffer wall location on sheet 1 (site plan) conflicts with the location shown on the landscape plan. The buffer wall should correspond on all drawings and be located where it does not conflict with the canal easement (including the footer) and allows sufficient room for required landscaping and maintenance of the wall. Appendix A-Zoning, Section 4(L)~ Article II, Section 7.5-33(b) 3. The following additional information on the freestanding sign is required: materials, letter size, letter style, and setback distance. Appendix A-Zoning, Section ll[A) 10. The only advertisement allowed on the freestanding sign is the project title or one main use. C~ 21-3 Freestanding Sign. The wall of the dumpster enclosure which abuts the building may be omitted as the building wall itself serves to screen 1 of the 3 sides of the dumpster required to be screened. Article II, Seotion 7.5-35(j). TH:frb BBarn.253 cc: Central File CARMEN S. ANN~ ADDENDUM A-2 Legal Description: A parcel of land lying in Palm Beach Courty, Florida, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the £ntersection of 'the Easterly right-of-way line of ,,the Florida East Coast Railway with the East-WeSt Quarter section Line Of Section 4, Township 46 south, Ran9e 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida; then'ce Easterly along said East-West Quarter Section Line, a distance of 80.90 feet; thence Northerly, paral.lel with the ~aid Easterly right-6f-way of the Florida Coast Railway, a distance of 62.67 feet *- h_ ~ East the Northerly right-of-way line of Gulfstream BoUleVard; t~ence Easterly along said Northerly right-of-way line a distance o 70.55 feet to the point Of curvature of a c ..... f · . u~ concave ~o the South havAng a radAus of 1950.08 feet and a 59' 38"; thence Easterly along the aec of · of 5." of 204 feet; thence continue Easterly, along line, tang.hr to said Curve, a distance of Point of Beginning o the continue Easterly, feet to the point e to the: Northwest having a radius of 20 feet and a ce of 72" 27' 50#; thence Easterly and Northerly sion, of said: curve, a 'distance of 25.29 feet to a point l right-of-way line of U. S. }{ighway NortherLy along said right-of-way Line distance of 180.03 feet; thence Westerly. maki e, a ~ngle with the pr,ce,ding course of 107" 33' 34", mea fr°m N0rth to West, a distance of 263.45 feet; 'thence Souther angle wxth the preceding course of 98" 33' 12" an to South, a distance of 187.60 feet to the Poinlt of a£oredescribed, inning ADDENDUM B MEMORANDUM June 29, 1989 TO: FROM: RE: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato, Planning Director The Club - Parking Lot Variance 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 B°~rd must forward t° the Planning and Zoning Board a recommendation, and that the recommendation forwarded is to be made part of the public hearing procedings. To that end, this memo is forwarded, consistent with 5-145(c)(4). George C. Davis, agent for Steve Cooper and Ralph Lunati, is requesting a variance to Section 5-142(h)(3) "Driveways" of the Parking Lot Regulations which requires, with respect to this site, that no driveways may be constructed closer than 180 feet to the intersection of the rights2of-way lines on collector and arterial roads. In ~his instance, the applicant is requesting that the existing driveways onto Federal iHighway and Gulfstream Boulevard be ailow~d to c~ntinue. These two roads are . respectively classified as an arterial amd a collector according to the City and County thoroughfare plans. The driveway onto Federal lHighway is appr,oximately 24 feet wide and is located approximately 140 feet from the intersecting right-of-way lines. The driveway onto Gulfstream Boulevard is of similar w%dth and is located approximately 120 feet from the intersecting right-of-way lines. The applicant is seeking approval of the variance in connection with a proposed exterior design change to the building. The exterior design change requires that the site meet the requirements of the Landscape Regulations and the Parking Lot Regulations ,[see Section 7.5-38 of the Landscape Regulations and Section 5-138(d) of the Parking Lot Regulations). Approval of the variance application would allow the appl~icant to proceed with site plan approval for the parking lot changes and to secure a permit for the exterior building renovatfons. For a further 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 Thursday, June 29, 1989 the Technical Review Board (TRB) met to review the plans and documents submitted and to formulate a Page 1 of ADDENDUM C recommendation with regard to the variance requested. After review and discussion, the TRB recommended approval of the variance request as submitted. The reasons for this recommendation are as follows: 1) The applicant wo~ld be ~nable to access his property from Federal Highway if required to not have a driveway within 180 feet of the intersecting right-of-way lines. 2) There is a continuous raised median on Federal Highway in the vicinity of this driveway which limits turn movements to right turn in/right turn out only. 3) The history of traffic accidents in the vicinity does not indicate that either of these existing driveways has significantly contributed to these accidents. 4) There is sufficient frontage to allow for the westward relocation of the driveway onto Gulfstream Boulevard. This would require substantial reconstruction of the parking lot in the southwest portion of the site and it does not appear that westward relocation of the driveway would benefit the public by reducing traffic hazards, as there are no apparent traffic hazards that result from the existing location of this driveway. CARMEN S. ANN~FNZIATO JJG:frb Encs cc: Technical Review Board Central File clubpkg ~age 2 of ADDENDUM C Legal Description: Being a tract of land located in Section 19, Township 45 South, Range 43 East, County of Palm Beach, Florida and further described as follows: the East line of said Section 19, a distance of 2558.10' to a point; thence S. 89° 00' " 21 W., a distance of 60.G0' beginning Of the following description: Thence S. 00° 59' 39" E., along said Westerly rig~t-of-way line, a distance of 255.49' to a point; ~hence Si 889 5' 26" W., a distance of 308.00' to a point; thence N 00° 59' 39" W, a distance of 65.49 feet to a point; thence S. 85° 05' 26" W. , a distance of 340.00' to a point; thence N. 00° 59' ~9",W., a distance of 230.00* to a point; thence N. 88° 05' 26" E., a distance of 608.00 feet to a point; thence S46° 27' 06"iE., a distance of 56.11' to the principal point and place of beginning and containing 3.8656 acres. ADDENDUM D ~ TO: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director Herman's Plaza File No 255 - July 5, 1989 Parking Lot Variance 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 a recommendation, and that the recommendation forwarded is to be made a part of the public hearing proceedings. To that end, this memo is forwarded, consistent with 5-145(c)(4). Karl W. Seidenstucker, agent for Sigma Development, Inc., has requested a variance to Section 5-142(i)1 Appendix B of the Parking Lot Regulations, which requires, among, other things, that a 27 foot wide access aisle be provided where there is two-way traffic flow and parking stalls on both sides of the aisle. In this instance, the applicant is requesting relief from the 27 foot wide access aisle requirement for the access aisle within the parking bay adjacent to Congress Avenue. During construction of the parking area on the east side of the building, the access aisle along the building was laid out two feet five i~ches wider than was shown on the approved site plan resulting in a landscape strip along Congress Avenue of only three feet six inches; seven feet is required by code when there is a two ~oot vehicular overhang. To improve the situation the applicant is proposing to decrease the 27 foot access aisle within the parking bay adjacent to Congress Avenue by two feet in order tO increase the landscape strip along Congress Avenue by two feet (see attached diagram). The increased landscape strip would still necessitate a C~mmunity Appearance Board appeal for one foot six inches of landscaping which was granted on June 19, 1989. For further explanation of the code requirement, the nature of the variance requested, and the variance justification~-~lease refer to the attached Notice of Public Hearing and application. On Thursday, June 29, 1989, the Technical Review Board (TRB) met to review the plans and documents submitted, and to formulate a recommendation with regard to the variance requested. After review and discussion, the TRB recommended approval of the variance as submitted for the following reasons: constructing a 27 foot access aisle would involve having to reconstruct the center of the parking area Page 1 of ADDENDUM E east of the building, to shift ~he nine foot wide landscaped median two feet to the west. Herman's Plaza has a temporary certificate of occupancy pending resolution of this issue and is open for business. Major parking lot reconstruction may result in traffic circulation problems and customer safety concerns. CARMEN S. ANNUNZfATO TJH:frb cc: Central File hermnplz Page 2 of ADDENDUM E MEMORANDUM July 3, 1989 TO: FROM: RE: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director R011~ng Green School Park - File Parking Lot Variance No 256 Section 5-144[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 a 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 5-144(c)(4). The City of Boynton Beach has requested a variance to Section 5-142(f] Drainage of the Parking Lot Regulations which requires, among other things, that storm water be contained on site at a minimum capacity of two and one-half inches of rainfall in one hour. In this instance, the City is requestin~ that two-thirds of the drainage be allowed to drain into the grassed swale within the N.E. 26th Avenue right-of-way and one-third of the drainage be allowed to drain onto the park property leased by the City from the school board. The site p!l'an for the park was approved by the City Commission May 16, 1989, conting~nu upon approval of a parking lot variance. 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, application and site plan diagram. On Thursday, June 29, 1989, the Technical Review Board (TRB) met to review the plans and documents submitted, and to formulate a recommendation with regard to the Variance requested. After review and discussion, the ~RB recommended approval of the variance as submitted for the following reasons: 1) meeting the drainage requirement by providing retention areas would allow less room for public recreation use. 2) due to the narrow width of the City property (50 feet) and the code requirement to provide a total of 52.5 feet for a minimum two and one-half foot landscape strip on the north side of the parking lot, 45 feet of pavement width for parking and access aisle and a minimum five foot landscape strip between the edge of Page 1 of ADDENDUM F pavement and the N.E. 26th Avenue right-of-way, for which a landscape appeal was approved, there is insufficient room to provide additional swales for drainage. 3) of the numerous site design solutions discussed during the TRB review of the site p~an, the park%ng lot layout approved by the City commission enabled six mature trees to remain and provided a five foot Wide landscape strip to buffer the parking lot from the interior of the park, two and one-half feet more than required by code. CARMEN S. ~NNUN~TO TJH:frb Encs cc: Central'File RGRSCHPK Page 2 of ADDENDUM F 2 for the provision of open space and public recreation facilities. It was also recognized, at that time, that a unique opportunity existed to provide a larger public recreation facility by combining the public park facilities with the recreation facilities proposed for t~e new elementary school to the south (Elementary School "P"). The joint use of recreation facilities between the City and the School Board is currently undertaken at various sites in the City, including Congress Avenue Middle School, Forest Park Elementary School, Rolling Green Elementary School (recently approved), among others. As both Citrus Glen I and II were both under contract to Alan Miller, it was originally contemplated that both Citrus Glen I and II would dedicate the~q~antity of land necessary for the park through the parks decided, at the une of platting of PhaSe I, that in lieu of dedicating land, the developer would PaY cash. This cash payment would the~ be appiied toward the purchase of the remaining.three acres or so of the five acre park in Phase Ii that wou~d be obtained through land dedication upon plat approval. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning (see attached location map in Exhibit "C"): Abutting the subject parcel to the north is the Citrus Glen Planned Unit Development which is currently being developed by GranadoS Enterprises. Abutting the subject parcel to the east is the Sun, ny South Estates mobile home pa~k zoned RS (Single-Family Residential) in Palm Beach County. Abutting the subject parcel to the south is Elementary School "P" zoned R-1AA (Single-Family Residential). Abutting the subject parcel to the west is the right-of-way for Lawrence_ROad. Further to the west, across Lawrence Road, is a commercial tree nursery (Boynton Nurseries) Zoned AR (Agricultural-Residential) in Palm Beach CoUnty. Procedure: This request for rezoning is being processed consistent with Section 9.C of Appendix A-Zoning, entitled "Comprehensive Plan Amendments; Rezonings" and Section 10-of Appendix B-Planned Unit Developments, entitled "Procedures for Zoning of Land to PUD". Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Map: The applicant is proposing to rezone the PUD~for the p~rpose of substantially altering the master plan. The underlying PUD zoning with a Land Use Intensity=4 will not change. The proposed density (3.92 dwelling units per acre) falls below the 4.82 dwelling units per acre permitted under the existing Low Density Residential land use category. Comprehensive Plan - Text: The following Comprehensive Plan policies are relevant to this rezoning request: 1979 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "Provide an adequate range of housing choices." (p.6) Page 2 of ADDENDUM G "Provide a suitable living environment in all neighborhoods." (p~6) "Provide adequate open space and recreation facilities and programs to meet the needs of present and future residents." (p.7) "Coordinate the provision of open space and recreation facilities within new private development to insure an adequate range of recreation opportunities." (p.7) "Provide for efficient and safe movement within the city." (p.7) 1986 EVALUATION & APPP~AISAL REPORT 47 3.4.3.3. Neighborhood Parks "Neighborhood parks are intended to be "walk to" parks so their service area should not be bisected by arterial streets with thoroughfare traffic. School playgrounds in some cases can be effectively used as neighborhood parks. The recommended supply of neighborhood park areas is 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons. However, in areas where single family development predominates, the standard should be increased due to the larger proportion of school age children. Three to five acres is considered minimum depending on the type and range of activities accommodated. As with mini parks, the service radii should not exceed a walking distance of one-quarter to one-half mile." (p.146) 47 3.4.3.6. Current and Future Park Needs Summary "The most commonly accepted national standard of ten acres of park per 1,000 residents indicates that the City of Boynton Beach is deficient in the provision of recreational ~reas within the city limits. Based on an estimated curren~ population of 36,000, the current need is for 360 acres. By 1990, demand for park area will increase to 570 acres. Compared with the City's current inventory of slightly more than 60 acres of parks, it would appear that the City is greatly deficient. However, by considering several factors relating to use characteristics and planned park projects, this apparent demand/supply imbalance is greatly reduced. When consideration is given to park development potential by park type in the region as well as in Boynton Beach, it is concluded that the greatest need is for the provision of properly located and developed neighborhood parks. In the longer-term future, however, the provision of district parks in newly developed areas will increase in importance." (p.147) 1989 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN c. Continue to utilize and improve school parks. Public schools in Boynton Beach continue to constitute an important public recreation resource due to the public use of their recreation Page 3 of ADDENDUM G of public recreation facilities, as the five acre public park is proposed to be eliminated (see previous section entitled, "Comprehensive Plan-Text" for a summary of relevant p~licies concerning the provision of public recreation facilitles). 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 districts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an lndlv~dua property owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the established low density residential land use pattern and would not create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. c. Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable. Conditions have not changed since the approval of the original master plan for the Citrus Glen II Planned Unit Development. d. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities. The proposed rezoning would be compatible with public utility systems. Concerning roadways, Section 10 of Appendix C, Subdivisions and Platting, requires that: The proposed subdivision street layout shall be coordinated with the street system'of the surrounding area and consideration shall be given to existing and planned streets, relation to topographical conditions, public convenience, safety and their appropriate relation to the proposed use of the land to be served by such streets. The arrangement of streets in new subdivisions shall provide for the continuation of existing streets in adjoining areas not subdivided, (and) the arrangement of streets in new subdivisions shall provide for the proper projection of streets. When a new subdivision adjoins unsubdivided land, then the new street, where necessary, shall be carried to the boundary of %he tract proposed to be subdivided to promote reasonable development of adjacent lands and provide continuity of street systems. The approved public road system in this subdivision and the adjacent subdivision to the north (Citrus Glen) provides an alternative access route between Miner Road and Lawrence Road and provides public access to the proposed city park. Access to Elementary school "P" is from a continuation of the north/south public street through Citrus Glen and Citrus Park to Lawrence Road. The alignment and design of this intersection was negotiated and agreed upon by the school Board, the Page 5 of ADDENDUM G RECEIVED MEMORANDUM ,JUN 25 Lq89 PLANNh~IG DEFT, TO: FROM: James Golden Planning Department John Wildner, Superintendent Parks Division DATE: RE: June 23, 1989 Citrus Park P.U.D. 'We have reviewed the rezoning request for Citrus Park P.U.D. (formerly Citrus Glen II). The following comments are submitted, 1. The comprehensive master plan encourages the location of neighborhood parks adjacent to school sites. The approved ~lan for Citrus Park P.U.D. includes a five acre park site immediately north of the new elementary school being constructed on Lawrence Road. The newly proposed rezoning request ~eliminates that park site and proposes only to pay the full recreation impact fee. This Department would prefer, to see a plan which includes a public park site adjacent to the new elementary school. 2. It is also a goal of the comprehensive master plan to encourage local traffic access to public school facilities. The newly proposed plan includes a private security system and private roads within this subdivison which limits local traffic access to the school site from other residential neighborhoods north of this P.U.D. This Department would prefer a plan which includes public roads and encourages public access through the development to the public school site. ~pOhn wildner, Superintendent arks Division CC: Charles Frederick, Director, Recreation & Park Dept. T.R.B. File JW: ad DOC:A:CITRUSPK ADDENDUM H-2 result in a negative impact on infrastructure delivery systems or the surrounding area in general. It is the intent of this section that all additional impacts be mitigated. Any decision Of the board in this regard is appealable to the City Commission. With respect to the modification requested by Mr. Rhodes, the Technical Review Board met on Thursday, June 22, 1989 to review the plans and documents submitted, and they are recommending that this request be denied. The basis for this recommendation is that the property owners who live in the residential subdivision to the north may be adversely impacted by the proposed change without having the opportunity for public input if this re. quest is approved. This recommendation is based upon condition no. 8 of the applicant s list of.self imposed conditions ~n Exhibit D and the nature of the original zoning approval, as documented in the minutes of the City commission public hearings in Exhibit PROJECT APPROVAL If it is the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to recommend approval or the City Commission to approve this project, it is recommended that the approval be contingent upon the staff comments that accompany this memorandum as Exhibit "F". CARMEN S. ~ JJG:frb Encs cc: Central File crcrctre Page 2 of ADDENDUM I MEMORANDUM June 27, 1989 TO: FROM: RE: With Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director Cross Creek Centre - Master Plan Modification File No. 248 respect to the above, please be advised of the following: At the June 22, 1989 Technical Review Board meeting, there were some technical concerns expressed~by staff regarding the addition of parking spaces to serve the additional retail square footage. These concerns are outlined in the accompanying staff comments from the Engineering Department, Utilities Department, and the Forester/Horticulturist. If this application is approved, the applicant would be required to submit a site plan application, including a revised site plan, landscape p~an, and engineering drawings, at which time these technical issues woul~ be addressed in greater detail. The possibility exists, however, that there may be a conflict between existing improvements and the areas where the additional parking spaces are proposed to be added, to the extent that the required amount of additional parking spaces cannot be added. On this basis, it is recommended that approval of this application be contingent upon future site plan approval to add the necessary quantity of parking spaces. CARMEN $. ANNb~ZIATO JJG: frb Encs ~, crcrmpm ADDE~DLLM J-2 .PARALLE~.~ ~TH' ~AZO EAST ::.' ~ZNB.' A~: BEZNG:'?THE'.HESTERLY ~ZGHT~OFZ~9~';t~,m'. dm] FROM THE. POINT-OF-BEGINNING.. THENCE N44' ' "~ a nT~*~m'n= uu.~ ~v- n...L~cN~ SOUTHHESTERLY ~ALONG.,THE: ARC O~'SAZ mV A CEN~RAL ANGLE DF;~g;-~O,OQ".~,.A D~STAN~E 0F-.394.74 FEET ;~O. THE END OF'SAID'' CURVE. ,., .THENCE'S4~ 24 40-H.?~A' D~STANCE,OE',233:.45 FEET ?~HENCE N48'35~AO"H.'- A DISTANCE' .OF'.-S2~,f~ ''FEET; '"THENCE NOJ ~54."05"~,.UA. D[ST~'~CE .OF 747,6~' FEET:";,-'". FEET;?.THENCE S~O.=~ 3.03 "E?;'L A ~""D~TANCE <'~ OF 69. O0 ';" FE~T;: ,:.S70~37(3'E. A 'D~STANCE OF..99,.99'~,'~EET; :THENCE -N60.'SB'OO'E.. A FEET; THENCE S38 '~7,.~8'~;~ A ' DISTANCE':: OF .: '"54'~ 79 "FEET ' '" -%-S67'~3'3B"E, A DISTANCE ,DF.':.',g'3:54'~.~EET;."'TH~CE'' s6~'2~'o0"E.- OF :7~.00 FEET:~'THENCE. N22~39'OO~E.?'A:~,D[STANCE. 'OF 65;4B FEET; . :- 50,00' ' ' .... ' ..... ' ' , , FEET :'TO ..":~NTERSECT ""THE AFOREHE~ONED HES~ERLY' '~' ,Y' :'~NE OF CONGRESS "AVENUE; THENCE ALON~ SA~D NESTERLY, "0~ CONGRESS AVENUE ' ' " " SO0.,.3A: 40 N, A DISTANCE'OF 548,80'FEET'TO ': . . [NC,.. ' ' ': .. ~.::.- . ..~...~.. _.'- ." . .. , ...'~..,:.; . · ..... , ' ~.:.y. -~ .. . { ; r,,(..,'.~ '¢ . .~.,.. -, ,-~' ~,.. · .... ¢.~ ~- .~- ~...~..~?.~.. ,~', 'TRAC~ 'A: FOR mUBL. 1C ' ROAO PURPo~FA A~ ~unwu u:nmn~. ~ ADDENDU~ K c) Suggest that the applicant apply for a sign variance to allow the sign requested to be l~cated within the existing landscaped median within sandalwood Drive, a public right-of-way. CARMEN S. ANNUN~ATO TJH:frb cc: Central chaletiv File Page 2 of ADDENDUM L MEMORANDUM July 3, 1989 TO: FROM: RE: o o o Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director Quantum office Park (lots 4&5) - File No 258 Site Plan Modification - Staff Comments Parking space calculations are rounded to the next highest whole number. Amend sheet SP-t and application to reflect a tctal of 165 parking spaces required for 49,272 square feet gross floor area. Appendix Ar Section ll[H)14. Sheet SP-1 indicates 181 9 foot by 18 foot stalls which is accurate. Amend the application which indicates 187, 9 foot by 18 foot stalls. The site data table on sheet S~-I indicates commercial/ office uses% The Quantum Park master plan limits this parcel to office use. Resubmit the paving and drainage plan to verify that no retaining walls or earthwork are needed uo construct the concrete decks as was shown on the original site plan. Article II, Sec. 19-17(K). Resubmit the lighting plan to verify that the security lighting in the rear of the building has not changed as a result of this request. Article II, Sec. 19-17(g). The comments from the December 1988 site plan modification have not been signed-off. Since these comments have not been addressed with this request, the applicant shall address the previous ~omments simultaneously with the new comments resulting from this request during a final sign-off procedure. In addition to a final sign-off, permit plans in the Building Department must also be amended whenever a site plan modification is approved. As per previous staff comments (December 1988) and after having reviewed the signage information that was submitted prior to the December 1988 community Appearance Board Meeting, the following information needs to be submitted for 1 ADDENDUM 0 site plan review prior to pulling a sign permit: building sign locations, color, size, letter style and size; directory and directional sign ~olors and letter size and s~yle. Chapter 21, Section 21-14(M]2. CARMEN S. ANNIFNZI~fTO TJH:frb cc: Central File QTMOPK 2 Page~2_pf ADDENDUM O