Loading...
Minutes 07-28-87MINUTES OF SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD ROYAL PALM CLUBHOUSE, N. E. 22ND AVENUE AND NORTH FEDERAL HIGHWAY, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, JULY 28, 1987 AT 7:30 P. M. IN PRESENT Robert Wandelt, Vice Chairman Harold Blanchette ~arilyn Huckle Simon Ryder Robert Walshak Gary Lehnertz, Alternate ABSENT Walter "Marty" Trauger, Chairman (Excused) Martin Jackier (Excused) Bob Rousseau, Alternate (Excused) Carmen Annunziato, Director of Planning Tim Cannon, Senior City Planner Michael Rumpf, Assistant City Planner Vice Chairman Wandelt called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M., introduced the members of the Board, the Planning Staff, and the Recording Secretary. He recognized the presence in the audience of Former Mayor Carl Zimmerman and Laura Hubbard, Reporter, Sun Sentinel. MINUTES OF JULY 14, 1987 Since Vice Chairman Wandelt did not recelve these minutes and this was not a regular Board meeting, Vice Chairman Wandelt said they would dispense with approval of the minutes until the August llth meeting. The other Members present had received their copies of the minutes. ANNOUNCEMENTS Public Hearing To Be Conducted By City Commission Vice Chairman Wandelt announced that the City Commission will conduct a public hearing on the items on this agenda on August 6, 1987 at 7:30 P. M. at City Hall, 120 East Boynton Beach Boulevard. Next Meeting of Planning and Zoning Board Vice Chairman Wandelt announced that the next meeting of the P&Z Board will be August 11 at 7:30 P. M. at Pineland Plaza, 211 South Federal Highway, on the first floor, in the southwest corner. MINUTES . PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 COMMUNICATIONS Vice Chairman Wandelt announced that the Board had letters from property owners involved in the items on tonight's agenda, and the letters will be noted in the record. OLD BUSINESS None. A. PUBLIC BEARINGS Vice Chairman Wandelt stated that the agenda consisted of six rezoning requests, prepared by the City Staff, which implement the decisions made by the City Commission in the adoption of the 1986 Evaluation and Appraisal (E&A) report as an amendment to the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. Rules for the Hearing Vice Chairman Wandelt set the following rules for the hear- ings: (1) The City Planning Staff would make a brief presentation. (2) Those speaking in favor would be asked to step forward and identify themselves by giving their names and addresses to the Recording Secretary and then stating their opinions. (3) Those speaking in opposition would do the same. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked that all speakers limit their presentations to three minutes. If there was a spokesman for a group of interested persons, he said he would appreciate if others expressing the same point of view would not duplicate the testimony. REZONING Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: North District Park Site/American Legion (Application A-I) Carmen S Annunziato City of Boynton Beach American Legion Post #228 North Seacrest Blvd., west side, between Boynton Parkway and N. W. 19th Avenue Request to rezone from R-3, Multi- Family Dwelling and C-2, Neighborhood Commercial to REC Recreation, for the purpose of implementing the Compre- hensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Legal Description: See "Exhibit A" attached to the original copy of these minutes in Office of the City Clerk the Mr. Cannon explained to the audience that this is the first in a series of 17 rezonings that the City is going to under- take in order to implement the 1986 Comprehensive Plan E&A Report. All of the applications are initiated by the City and not by the property owners. Under State law, the City has the power to initiate zoning changes, provided that the affected property owners are notified. In addition, Mr. Cannon sa~d all people owning property within 400 feet have to'be notified. Mr. Cannon said the next group of rezonings will be heard on August 25th. This is an entirely different set from what the Board was hearing tonight. The zoning changes are necessary in order to bring the zoning map into conformity with the Land Use Plan. Mr. Cannon made statements which were contained in the memo from Mr. Annunziato, dated July 22, 1987, which was addressed to the Board, which is attached to the original copy of these minutes in the Office of the City Clerk. Mr. Rumpf showed the overlay, which Mr. Cannon explained. Mr. Cannon said the site is owned almost entirely by the City. It is the site that the City acquired from the Riteco Corporation, and it is part of Riteco's park dedication requirement in conjunction with the zoning of the Catalina Club Planned Unit Development (PUD). Rather than the City requiring a park site on Congress Avenue, the City agreed to take this property. Mr. Cannon said one parcel in the southwest corner is owned by American Legion Post #228, which would also be zoned Recreation, but that should not be a problem because private clubs are a permitted use in a recreational zoning district. The property is now zoned C-2 along Seacrest Boulevard and R-3 on the westernmost 3/4. The Land Use Map has been changed to show the entire area under the Recreational Land USe category. Zoning the property to Recreation would be consistent to the policy that was adopted in 1979, and Mr. Cannon explained. Fir. Cannon told the Members a park will eventually be devel- oped for a multi-purpose building (a combination gymnasium and MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 auditorium) on the eastern part of the property. The western part of the property contains some Sand Pine scrubs, and there is a Comprehensive Land Policy that 25% of any native ecosystems on site be preserved. Mr. Cannon said the existing Rolling Green Park was the REC shown at the top of the overlay. It is a neighborhood park, and this parcel will be combined with Rolling Green Park. Mr. Ryder observed that the American Legion is in the south- west corner, and he wondered what else was on the site of any significance. Mr. Cannon replied that there is an abandoned building in the northeast corner of the site, which is owned by the City. Someone in the audience asked how many acres there were. Mr. Cannon believed there were about 20 acres. Mr. Ryder commented that it was unusual to have an area like this entirely undeveloped. Mr. Cannon thought it was because the entire area was zoned Commercial for a long time, and there is not a great deal of demand for Commercial development in that area. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the rezoning. There was no response. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone wished to speak in opposi- tion to the rezonlng. There was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Ryder moved that the Board recommend approval of the request for rezoning, recognizing the fact that this is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lehnertz seconded the motion, and the motion carried 6-0. 2. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Legal Description: Sunrise Academy Site (Application A-2) Carmen S. Annunziato Paul D. Wessen and Rebecca F. Wessen 100 N. W. 19th Avenue Request to rezone from R-3, Multiple- Family Dwelling to C-2 Neighborhood Commercial for the purpose of implementing the Evaluation and Appraisal Report Rolling Green Ridge 1st Addition, west 35.75 feet of the east 260.94 feet of the north 158.64 feet of Tract A - 4 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 , *Should be is Mr. Cannon said this site is particularly developable for not particularly apartments, and it would be undesirable to have a lot split-~velopable. by zoning districts. He explained why it would be desirable See 9/8/87 to have this entire parcel in the C-2 zoning district. If Minutes. the north district park site is rezoned and this is zoned C-2, Mr. Cannon said there will be the Sunrise Academy site, and then there is a small~ircle of land, which he believed *Should be is owned by the City, and then there is the Rainbow Grocery and gas Station on the corner of Seacrest and 19th Avenue. From conversations with the owners of the Sunrise Academy site, Mr. Cannon learned that they are intending to refurbish the building and reopen it as a day care center. They will have to go through the Conditional Use process again because Day Care Centers are Conditional Uses in C-2 zoning districts. The status of the property really would not be changed if the west 35.75 feet was zoned C-2. parcel of land See 9/8/87 ~nutes. Mr. Ryder asked where the name, "Sunrise Academy Site", came from. Mr. Cannon believed there actually was a day care center there at one time. There was a fire in the building, and it was partially destroyed. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the rezoning. There was no response. Uice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone wished to speak in opposi- tion to the rezoning. There was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mrs. Huckle moved to approve the application for a request to rezone from R-3 Multi-Family to C-2 Neighborhood Commercial for the purpose of implementing the E&A Report. Mr. Blanchette seconded the motion, and the motion carried 6-0. e Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Lake City Trailer Park and Adjacent Parcel (Application B) Carmen $. Annunziato Jeannie and W. Smith Gene Moore III and Robert Griffith, Jr., Trustees 2500-2600 block of North Federal Highway Request to rezone from R-1AA, Single Family Residential to R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling for the purpose of implementing the Evaluation and Appraisal Report - 5 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Legal Description: See description to the original attached as Exhibit B copy of these minutes. Mr. Cannon said this request occupies 5.3 acres, and it lies on the northern boundary of the City between U. S. 1 and the Intracoastal. The two parcels that immediately abut Boynton Beach are occupied by the Hypoluxo Marina. To the north of the Hypoluxo Marina is a condominium and townhouse develop- ment in the Town of Hypoluxo. Mr. Cannon continued by saying Application B occupies two parcels. The northern parcel is occupied by the Lake City *Should be "is Trailer Park, and the southern parcel*~-s--f~c~3--sv,~i,. Application B is an area platted for 25 foot lots, and it vacant." See is partially developed for single family dwellings. However~/8/87Minutes' there is a substantial piece of*property along the northern side of Dimick Road. Dimick Road is the first east/west road going south. Presently, there is a C-3 zoned strip along U. S. 1, and Mr. Cannon said both of the properties that are subject to Application B have frontage on U. S. 1 that is zoned C-3. Prior to the adoption of the E&A Report, both of these parcels were in the moderate density, residential category. The E&A report changed that to a high density category and recommended that the zoning be changed to from R-1AA to R-3. This particular recommendation was not contained in the original E&A report. *Should be yacht property. See 9/8/87 Minutes. Mr. Cannon explained that during the course of the hearing, the owner of Lake City Trailer Park requested that his pro- perty be changed to a Commercial zoning category. Since there is a high boat storage shed in the Town of Hypoluxo to the north of his property, he did not feel it was develop- able for any kind of single family housing. The P&Z Board and City Commission decided to meet the owner half way and change the Land Use on the property to ~igh Density Resi- dential, and in order to create a more developable parcel, it was proposed that the parcel immediately to the south also be included in that High Density Residential. Mr. Cannon thought the owner of Lake City Trailer Park still would like to develop the property as Commercial. He thought the owner argued that it was developable for any residential use. Mr. Cannon thought it was the feeling of the Board and the Commission that the property is developable for some kind of cohdominium project along the Intracoastal. If the - 6 - MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 property owners want to develop it either separately or by combining the parcels for some commercial use, they probably would be better off making it some kind of *commercial development. As part of the 1989 Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Cannon said the City will have to do an analysis of all the remaining vacant parcels along the Intracoastal. He said the City is supposed to ensure that there is an adequate supply of property along the Intracoastal for marinas and other water*intended uses. *Should be Mr. Ryder asked to be shown the trailer park area on the overlay. Mr. Cannon explained that the trailer park is the northernmost parcel. Mr. Ryder asked what is in the southern portion. Mr. Cannon answered that it is vacant. Mr. Ryder was there this afternoon and said the northernmost parcel is up against the boat storage place. *Should be planned c~anercial development. See 9/8/87 minutes. related. Minutes. See Mr. Walshak asked why applications were "lumped together" on certain parcels. He clarified that there were two differen~ pieces of property owned by two different parties on one appIication. From the standpoint of paperwork and advertis- ing, Mr. Cannon said it was more efficient. He added that it will become more clear when they get applications from possibly a dozen or more property owners in one area where the property will be rezoned. Mr. Cannon confirmed Mr. Walshak's statement that the piece of land the application covers could be accessed from U. S. 1 without going down Dimick Road. It seemed strange to Mr. Ryder that the area is zoned R1AA to the north, and the boat storage, etc. is there. He wondered which came first. Mr. Cannon answered that the trailer park has been there for a long time and was there before the boat storage. Mrs. Huckle pointed out that they are in two different cities. The boat storage is in Hypoluxo, on the line of the City limits. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the request. William Smith, owner of Lake City Trailer Park, informed the Members that the trailer park has been there for 40 years. It is grandfa{hered in. At the time they were there, Clemons OWned the property north of them, and the property had a low silhouette. Six or seven years ago, someone else came in and did not contact him to say what they Were going to do. They said they had contacted the City of Boynton Beach, and - 7 - MINUTES . PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Boynton Beach said they did not care what they did because they were "over the line." Mr. Smith said the new owners put in a 40 foot high barn, 400 feet long, 100 feet wide on the line, and the City of Boynton Beach told him they could not do a thing about it. Mr. Smith said the trailer park can be cleared within a month or two. There is nothing that can be put on it except maybe Commercial, which is what he is trying to do. Mr. Smith doubted very much that anybody would build condominiums up against a barn. Only four stories are allowed in the City, and they would be staring at a barn all of the time. There would be no escape to get out the back end. As the property sits now, Mr. Smith stated it is valueless unless it is zoned for a marina. ~e understood that his neighbors, Messrs. Griffith and Moore, would be happy with that too. Vice Chairman Wandelt questioned whether Mr. Smith was speaking in favor of the zoning change. Mr. Smith answered that he would rather have that than the other one. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if Mr. Smith was in favor of the R-3. Mr. Smith replied that a representative of the City said if they make a plan, they would still have a chance to change it for what they want it for. Mr. Ryder asked if the units there now are all occupied and in use. Mr. Smith answered affirmatively. Mr. Ryder under- stood some of them were closed down for the summer. Mr. Smith informed him people have gone up north, but he asked the Board Members to keep in mind that the property is under the grandfather law. It is not zoned as a trailer park. There are no laws in the City of Boynton Beach that pertain to a trailer park. Mrs. Huckle noticed Mr. Smith said he understood from some official in the City that if he went along with R-3, he could eventually get what he wants. Mr. Smith understood that you can always change the zoning laws or Cod~ as long as you present the proper evaluation of whatever you are going to do. ~e did not see how they could say R-3 and maintain it continuousl~ if he could prove that they could do a lot better than R-3. Mrs. HuCkle pointed out that the application was to find that the property is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, which was approved last December, and which indicated that - 8 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 this should be High Density Residential. Mr. Smith said the official asked him if he would rather have R-3 than R-l, and he would, but he would rather have Commercial than any of those. Mrs. Huckle did not want him to leave, after the hearing was over with and the property approved for R-3, and think that he would have an immediate chance to develop the property commercially. Mr. Cannon advised that any commercial development would require that the property be first placed in a Commercial Land Use category and then be rezcned to Commercial. He confirmed Mrs. Huckle's statement that it would necessitate a Land Use Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, which is a lengthy process and can only be achieved twice a year. Mrs. Huckle further explained. Because of its location, adjacent to the Intracoastal, Mr. Ryder thought that, apparently, the original recommendation by the Planning Department that it go to Residential indicated that they felt it could be developed as Residential and be productive. He thought the location on the Intracoastal was very important. Mr. Ryder agreed with Mr. Smith that he would not want to live up against the barn. Mr. Smith apprised Mr. Ryder that he only has 150 feet north and south. Mr. Ryder pointed out that there is another parcel below that. Mr. Smith exclaimed that is not his parcel. If the owner sells that tomorrow for a condominium, he will be stuck with 150 feet. ~. Ryder said it may be a matter of assembling both parcels. It could be developed residenti- ally. The plus is that it is on the Intracoastal, which is not easy to come by. Mr. Ryder could see it as an attractive development for re~sidential purposes. There was disagreement between ~Mr. Ryder and Mr. Smith. If they would approve the zoning change, Mr. Walshak asked if Mr. Smith would consider a stipulation to make sure that *S~ould be traEfic would*edge the proper~y on the Federal line rather enter the than coming down into that small, residential area. Mr. ~ro~erty. Smith said they had offers to sell the whole parcel as a See 9/8/87 commercial piece of property. They do not have to worry Minutes. about Dimick Road at all. P~ople in the audience protested. Mr. Annunziato interrupted to tell Mr. Watshak it was pre- mature to worry about that at this point. At the time the property is platted, the issues of access will be addressed. Mr. Annunziato thought the intent of Mr. Walshak's comment was that these properties should be accessed from U. S. 1 and not Potter and Dimick Roads. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the rezoning. - 9 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Robert F. Griffith, Jr., Esq., one of the owners of the other part of the parcel, 170 ~eptune Drive, Hypoluxo, was speaking in favor of the rezoning. He has been in Boynton Beach for about 40 years, and the trailer park was there when he came here. Gene Moore, III and he purchased the property adjoining it, which is the lower part of the tract to the south, on August 1, 1973. At the time they purchased the property, it was zoned Commercial. Attorney Griffith said they owned the property for a short term and had a buyer interested in it to put a Holiday Inn on it. It was zoned at that time to accept hotels and motels. Due to a recession, Attorney Griffith said the Federal Savings and Loan refused to go through with their loan, which left the developer with the contract to purchase. The developer had put a sizeable deposit on the property and had a~so purchased all of the lots along Dimick Road, except the parcel of Commercial on the corner down to where the street right-of-way is.. Attorneys Griffith and Moore returned the deposit to the developer, and the City rezoned the property to R-1AA. Attorney Griffith did believe a person present could say that is R-1AA property. One reason is it is backed up against Mrs. Smith's motel and the trailer park, which is not a very acceptable residential location to have the cost price and tax value that the property is set in. To try to recover the property through building single family homes, Attorney Griffith knew, having developed a number of pieces of property, that it would be a practical impossibility. Attorney Griffith said they have been before the City to get some relief from the R-3 zoning, and it was amazing how anyone would consider it R-3 property, especially Mr. Smith's property, where he is up against Commercial development. ~e illustrated the need for marina facilities. Attorney Griffith thought, as Mr. Smith did, that neither of the pieces of property can be developed under any type of residential. If you visualize the narrowness of Mr. Smith's property, which is narrower than Attorneys Griffith and Moore's property, there would have to be high density apart- ments to recover the value of the land. The property on the west end or near the commercial certainly would not be desirable, and the properties, other than the ones with a view of the water, would be the only properties that would be saleable and water front developed properties. It would be a difficult job to develop it with the adjoining property - 10 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 to the north constituting a wall there. It seemed to Attorney Griffith to ever develop that property type of Residential. ~mpossible to any Holiday Inn looked at their parcel in 1973, and Attorney Griffith said the man that had the franchise permit was given the go ahead, so he knew a Commercial type venture would be possible there. He was happy to hear that the State indi- cated this area needs more marina facilities. If both of those pieces could be rezoned, Attorney Griffith said they would make every effort to do it. From 1973 up until today, Attorney Griffith said they have had the property listed for sale and have not received one bona fide offer. One party interested in buying the Hypoluxo Marina was interested in buying those two pieces to expand that development, and he said they would like to sell it to the party. Attorney Griffith thought it would be a proper development of the property. In repurchasing the property, Attorney Griffith said they did not own it originally. The man that had the Holiday Inn franchise had purchased the lots along Dimick Road except the Commercial piece on the corner down to the road that goes east and west, one lot depth from the waterway. Attorneys Griffith and Moore own those lots, and their thoughts were that if they could get a favorable decision on zoning, those could remain as undeveloped whatever zoning is required as a buffer zone for the Lakeside Gardens property. A~torney Griffith also owned some other lots in Lakeside Gardens and had them for a number of years before he could sell them. He sacrificed them for just about what he paid for them to get rid of them. Attorney Griffith did not know if the Board was cognizant of the fact that the whole tract of property from south of Potter Road, where it goes up to the condominium northward to where Dimick Road is, is a low piece of property, and it basically has a muck surface to it. To develop that property in a "one house at a time" development would be quite a difficult job. Vice Chairman Wandelt reminded Attorney Griffith of the request, and stated he could not see where Attorney Griffith was speaking in favor of the request. Attorney Griffith went with the words of Mr. Smith, and he said they would certainly rather have R-3 from the fact that it is a step different than R-1AA, but he thought the character of the whole neighborhood should be brought to the Board's atten- 11 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 tion. Attorney Griffith did not think one single family home had been constructed in the whole tract in thirty years, so that should tell the City something. Someone said it had been longer than that. Attorney Griffith continued that lots are there, in a nice locationw but they have problems with water overflowing during high water tides, and the street floods many times. Some people in the audience began to argue with him. Attorney Griffith said he has been on the street when water was up to his tires. Attorney Griffith expressed that the property needs some relief. If the Board has no other choice but to put it to the R-3, they would be in favor of it and hope at a later point they can come before the proper authorities to have the site plan taken care of. Attorney Griffith wished it noted that there can be an adequate buffer to take care of the property zoning. He would not ask for it to go all the way up to Dimick Road, simply because there needs to be a buffer. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the request. There was no response. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the request. Dale Wisener, 622 Dimick Road, had no objection to the changing of the zoning but understood that he could have an attachment made to the Board's report that would say no construction traffic or residential traffic after construc- tion will exit on Dimick Road. That will be attached to the report and cannot be changed unless another zoning meeting is held. Vice Chairman Wandelt did not believe the Board could do that at this time. Mr. Ryder said it was something the Board usually considers when a site plan is considered. Mr. Wisener asked if they can do it. Vice Chairman Wandelt did not see anything that said the Board can not do it. Doris Wisener, 622 Dimick Road, referred to Attorney Griffith's comments about muck being there, etc. She told how they improved their property and said nothing is wrong with that property. Mrs. Wisener said three homes are on their street. If traffic goes up and down Dimick Road, they will lose what they like. She said all the people - 12 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 were asking was for them not to divert the traffic on their street, so they can have their animals and children. Mr. Walshak assured Mrs. Wisener that the Board is concerned about the residents in the area. He thought the Director of Planning stated it very adequately when he said a site plan is applied for, the Board will put in those staff comments. Mrs. Wisener stated that the people are worried about what the Board will do later on, as they cannot contest it. The people have been living there for 17 years and love it. Mr. Walshak advised that they will have the right to contest it at the time of the site plan application. If their circumstances are met, Mrs. Huckle asked if Mrs. Wisener was speaking favorably for the R-3. Mrs. Wisener replied that they do not like it, but they cannot do any- thing about it. Mrs. Huckle asked how they -would feel if Mr. Smith would convince the Board to go with the Commercial zoning. Mrs. Wisener answered that they do not care about that. Mrs. ~isener also informed Mrs. Huckle that if a marina was built, it would not bother them. They ]ust do not want Dimick Road and Potter Road disturbed. Mrs. Huckle determined that their only concern was the road and not what is built on either side of ito Mrs. Wisener did not want undesirables there. After some comments, Mrs. Wisener stated she was against it. Mr. Wisener explained that the lake front runs into the property~ and it would be an easy way out. Mrs. Wisener did not want High Density Residential. Mr. Smith objected and said they were talking about something that is not going on. Mrs. Huckle explained that she was asking Mrs. Wisener if she objected to R-3, which allows High Density Residential, which can go up as high as 45 feet or four stories. It does not mean it will go that high, but it is one thing that R-3 encompasses. Mrs. Huckle continued by saying Mr. Smith had asked if there was any chance that somewhere down the road this might be zoned Commercial. She was not saying that would be granted, but she wanted to know if Mrs. Wisener would object to Commercial, one of which uses could be a marina. Mrs. Huckle added that Commercial use could allow for a lot of things. Mrs. Wisener guessed she answered that. She guessed her main concern was trying to keep their neighborhood the way it is. Mrs. Huckle was trying to understand the neighbors feelings. 13 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Mrs. Wisener called attention to letters the Board received from her neighbors and said their property is zoned Commercial, but they live on the property and do not sell it. Mrs. Huckle asked Mrs. Wisener if she was in the front part of the property, and Mrs. Wisener answered that she is. Whether it goes to Commercial or R-3 Residential, Vice Chairman Wandelt told Mrs. Wisener site plans must be approved, and the site plan will have the traffic direction. If Mrs. Wisener opposes it, that is when she should come to the meeting. The Board cannot guarantee that because they do not know what will be built. Mrs. Wisener inquired whether she and her neighbors would get a notice. Mr. Annunziato informed her that it will be a public hearing. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if Mr. and Mrs. Wisener were in ~vor or opposed. Mr. Wisener replied that they are in vor because they cannot do anything about it. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition to the rezoning. There was no response. The Members had copies of letters from Kathryn and Martin J. McGee~ who owns over half of the lots on Dimick Road, and from Judy and Robert Herold, who were in opposition to the rezoning. Copies of these letters are in the Office of the City Clerk. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Ryder was inclined to go with the recommendation of the Planning Department because there did not seem to be enough frontage on the Intracoastal for a marina. He could see a residential building and the use of the frontage on the Intracoastal for boat slips there. Mr. Blanchette agreed with Mr. Cannon that there could be a possible second solution to this down the road. Mr. Ryder moved to grant the request to rezone from R-iAA, Single Family Residential to R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling for the purpose of implementing the E&A Report in recogni- tion of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Blanchette seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. 4. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Shooters on the Water Restaurant and Lounge (Application C-l) Carmen S. Annunziato Shooters of Boynton Beach, Inc. 2280 North Federal Highway Lots 6 and 7, Sam Brown Junior Sub- division, less State Road 5 right-of- way (less the west 239.55 feet thereto) 14 MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Description: Request to rezone from C-4 General Commercial to C-3 Community Commercial for the purpose of imple- menting the E&A Report Mr. Cannon said the northern lot is presently occupied by the restaurant's parking lot and its docks. The southern lot is presently vacant, except for a shellrock parking lot on the eastern end. The entire frontage along U. S. 1 is zoned C-3, and that includes the front part of these two lots, so it would be a C-3 zoning district all the way from U. S. 1 to the Intracoastal Waterway. Mr. Cannon stated that C-4 zoning on this property reflects its former use as a marina and boat yard. He explained and added that there is no reason to continue C-4 zoning. Zoning the property C-3 is more or less assuring that it will not be used for uses such as auto repairs, although Mr. Cannon doubted that Shooters would want to put that kind of use there. C-3 would allow virtually any kind of use Shooters would might want to put on the property. Marinas are a permitted use under C-3 zoning, as are restaurants and night clubs. Mr. Cannon informed the Board that Shooters also owns Lots 8 and 9 south of that, and the front part of those lots will be the subject of the next application. Mr. Ryder asked if the request came from the owner. Mr. Cannon answered that the request was made in the E&A Report. Mr. Walshak noticed that Mr. Cannon said the property was owned by Shooters, and he questioned who P L & G Enterprises, Inc. (shown on the application) is. Mr. Cannon thought they were under the same control. Patricia Rathburn, Attorney at Law, Atkins and Jennings, 1946 Power Street, Hollywood, representing Shooters of Boynton Beach, Inc., told the Members that Lot 6, which is the northern lot, is the one not owned by Shooters of Boynton Beach. They have a long term lease on that property. Mr. Walshak asked if that was owned by P L & G Enterprises, Inc. Attorney Rathburn did not remember who owns the property. Attorney Rathburn said Lot goes down to Lots 8 and 9. the C-4 is presently being 7 is where the C-4 is, and it She agreed with Mr. Ryder that used as a ~hallow parking lot. *Should be shellrock. 9/8/87 ~f~nut es. See - 15 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Attorney Rathburn said items 4 and 5 on the agenda basically affected her client and were tied together. She wanted to make a presentation on both 4 and 5. They are two different zonings, but Attorney Rathburn reiterated that they were tied together. Mr. Annunziato thought, for the purposes of the public hearings, they should be separated because the issues should be separate. Attorney Rathburn asked if Vice Chairman Wandelt wanted to hear from the public first. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if Attorney Rathburn said all she wanted to say. As Attorney Rathburn replied that she had not started, Vice Chairman Wandelt instructed her to finish first. Attorney Rathburn asked the Members to recall that in the hearings last year for the Land Use Amendments, the President of Shooters, Inc. appeared and spoke against the rezoning from C-4 to C-3. The property was C-4 when they bought it. They just bought Lot 7 to use for parking, so they could use it all for the ongoing operation of Shooters restaurant. Attorney Rathburn agreed that the City Planner was correct in that a rezoning to C-3 would allow the continuation of Shooters and the parking lot; however, it is somewhat tied in to the lots to the south, which Shooters also purchased to operate Shooters. Going on record for or against, Attorney Rathburn emphasized that Shooters is not in favor of the down zoning from C-4 to C-3 unless it somehow could be tied together with the next application, Where the City is wishing to change C-3 to R-3. Vice Chairman Wandelt said that would put the Board in a bind, as they had to take the applications one by one. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of the zoning change. Cynthia Greenhouse, Attorney, 618 N. E. 20th Lane, Watersed~e, recalled that iat a public hearing several months ago, someone from Shooters and his Attorney were present. At that time, they actually suggested the down zoning of these parcels. She did not know the reason. Subsequently, that became a part of this agenda. Attorney Greenhouse, speaking for Watersedge~ said they circulated a petition. (The petition contains 18 signatures and supports the proposed rezoning. A copy of said petition is in the Office of the City Clerk.) Attorney Greenhouse said the residents of Watersedge do not want to see an auto body shop where Shooters is now. She - 16 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 believed the down zoning to C-3 would be consistent with the use already being engaged in. Attorney Greenhouse was not going to speak at this moment on the parcels directly to the south except to say that at the public hearing, not only did the owner of Shooters suggest that it be down zoned from C-3 to R-3, he brought an archi- tect's rendering with him to show that they were going to put some beautiful town homes there. Speaking for Watsrsedge, Attorney Greenhouse said they are an favor of the rezoning from C-4 to C-3. As no one else wished to speak in favor of the rezoning, Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition to the rezoning. There was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Ryder assumed that the Planning Department gave this a lot of consideration, and he felt the Board should take that into account. Vice Chairman Wandelt agreed with him that the rezoning should not hurt Shooters. Mr. Cannon confirmed Mrs. Muckle's statement that the restaurant is on Lot 6 and the gravel parking lot Ks on Lot 7. Me informed Mrs. Muckle that the frontage of Lots 6 and 7 is already zoned C-3. Mrs. Muckle commented that would make it a cohesive zoning from the highway to the water. Mr. Walshak asked Mr. Cannon to suppose he (Cannon) was a buyer, and bought a piece of property on the Intracoastal with someone else for its zoning. Me pointed out that, naturally, there are more uses in C-4. If Mr. Cannon bought the property as C-4, and the Board recommended to the City Commission that they downgrade it to C-2, Mr. Walshak wondered how the Board would stand, from a legal standpoint. Mr. Cannon replied that the Courts have generally held that you are not speaking to the property unless you remove any reasonable economlc use of the property. If this property is zoned C-3, there would still be a great deal of economic use for the property. Mr. Walshak felt a piece of property would be more attractive to a buyer at a higher zoning, and he wondered how the City would stand legally if they downgrade a piece of property. Mr. Cannon did not think the rezoning would affect this property. C-4 zoning allows car lots and wholesale uses that you can never reasonably anticipate being put on this 17 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 property. The C-4 zoning is apparently a holdover from an earlier zoning code. Mr. Cannon explained. A man in the audience asked if there was a motion before the Board. Mrs. Huckle informed the man that she had said, "If a motion is in order," and Mr. Walshak wished to comment prior to her making a motion. The Chairman ruled that way. Mr. Ryder said the Board was talking about General Commercial (C-3) and a Community Commercial (C-4). He did not think it would be adaptable to the surrounding area if they resorted to some of the uses under C-4. In response to Mr. Walshak's question, Mr. Annunziato said there should be no fear in the minds of the Members of the P&Z Board or the City Commission about any action which up- grades zoning by down zoning the property from a less restricted category to a more restricted category. He told about the incidents that related to a Supreme Court decision in Los Angeles, California, which has caused a lot of people to question their actions. In this instance, Mr. Annunziato said no one could argue reasonably that C-3 is not an intensive use of land. He could see no chance whatsoever that the City would be subject- ing itself to any damaging testimony. He was not saying they could not be sued, but the outcome would be favorable to the City. Mrs. Huckle thought it was important to say that she understood one of the reasons the Comprehensive Land Use Plan has been promoted and endorsed by the State of Florida, Counties and all law bodies, is because it allows the City to take into consideration in its plan all of the surround- ing areas, traffic, neighbors, and the preservation of all factors. She alluded to when she was on the Zoning Board in 1972 and said they had no such types of understandings. Mrs. Huckle elaborated. She said they were talking about downgrading. To her, C-3 was upgrading, and she referred to Mr. Annunziato's statements. Mrs. Huckle said she could never consider that zoning from C-4 to C-3 would be a detriment to property because there are numerous Commercial uses, especially in a compatible area where there is water on one side and a heavy traffic artery on the other end of the property. She thought the main reason for such endorsement of the Comprehensive Plan and E&A Reports is to be sure the City is looking at areas - 18 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 and not single parcels that reflect an impact upon each other. In a C-4 district, Mr. Walshak mentioned that all permitted uses in C-l, C-2, and C-3 districts are included, plus twenty additional uses, and he commented that the rezoning would actuall~ be upgrading. Mrs. Huckle emphasized that she had said they would be upgrading the property with better uses. There were other comments. Mrs. Huckle's point was that if there are R-3 developments like Watersedge, single family homes like on Dimick and Potter Road, then C-3 zoning is much preferable to the area than C-4p which allows so many uses that are incompatible with the area. Mr. Ryder moved that the request to rezone from C-4 General Commercial to C-3 Community Commercial for the purpose of implementing the E&A Report be approved. He was referring to Shooters on the Water Restaurant and Lounge (Application C-l). Mrs. Buckle seconded the motion, and the motion carried 6-0. 5. Project Agent: Owner: Name: Location: Legal Description: Description: Watersedge and Adjacent Parcel (Application C-2) Carmen S. Annunziato Shooters of Boynton Beach, Inc., Watersedge Homeowners Assoc., James K. Abbot, Douglas J. Stowers and Barbara D. Stowers, Patrick R. Hans, Edward R. Tinari and Francis R. Tinari, John T. and Loretta Haines, J. P. and James Laudicina and Elizabeth Laudicina, Robert B. Taylor, Jr., Michael N. and Cheryl A. Jarvis, S. and Josephine G. Stillpass, Robert G. Emmett et al., Lisa Landis, N. W. and Cynthia S. Greenhouse, Kathleen N. Eaton, Robert L. and Judy R. Herold 2100 block of North Federal Highway Sam Brown Jr. Subdivision, W. 422.62 feet of Lots 8 and 9 (less State Road 5 right-of-way) and the west 328.62 feet of the Watersedge Request to rezone from C-3 Community Commercial to R-3 Multiple Family 19 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Dwelling for the purpose of implement- ing the E&A Report In the original draft of the E&A Report, Mr. Cannon said the Planning Department had recommended that just the parcel in Watersedge, which is zoned C-3, be rezoned to R-3. He indicated the location on the overlay. In the course of the publ.ic hearings, residents of Watersedge and of Shooters on the Water appeared, and there was discussion before the Board as to whether the block to the north of Watersedge, which is zoned C-3, should also be zoned to R-3. At the P&Z Board meeting, the owners of the lots controlled by Shooters objected to that zoning. They desired to have the C-3 zoning extended all the way to the Intracoastal. The P&Z Board favored the idea of having the lake lots 8 and 9 zoned to R~3. In the future Land Use Plan, Mr. Cannon said they are placed in the High Density Residential category, and that has already been accomplished. The E&A Report recommended that the f~rontage of Watersedge be rezoned to R-3. It was not specifically stated in the document the Members had now that Lots 8 and 9 be zoned to R-3. However, that recommendation went from the P&Z Board to the City Commission when the P&Z Board transmitted the E&A Report to the City Commission. The City Commission adopted the Land Use Plan that set High Density Residential from U. S. 1 to the Intracoastal. At the public hearing on July 2, 1986, Mr. Cannon said a representative of Shooters appeared with a site plan, and Mr. Cannon believed the Shooters representative was repre- sented by Mr. Morton Goldstein. The representative and Mr. Goldstein stated that they actually were in favor of extend- ing the R-3 zoning between U. S. 1 and the Intracoastal. On that basis, the City Commission approved the E&A report. Mr. Cannon thought it was apparent from Attorney Rathburn's discussion that there were some misgivings at this point, but they can always come in with a Land Use Amendment and Rezoning Request to some Commercial category. He thought the sentiment of the P&Z Board and City Commission, at the time the E&A Report was being adopted, was that it was not desirable to r~isk that land use conflict. Straight C-3 zoning would not p~ovide ~any gUarantee that the same kind of nuisances*would *Should be be suffered by residents of Watersedge. w~uldno_t be sufferedo Mr. Cannon was saying that if the owners of those two lots See 9/8/87 want to come in with some type of Commercial development, Minutes. - 20 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 it probably would be preferable if they submitted some type *Should be of of*plan for this development. It was the intent of the · p~ar~ed Board and City Commission that they did not want any type of ~ial C-3 zoning on either of the two lots. ~ d. evetOp~nt. See 9/8/87 Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone wished to speak in Minutes. favor of the request. J. Robert McDermott, 702 N. E. 20th Lane, was in support of the changing Of the front third of Lots 8 and 9, as well as the front third of Watersedge, to be classified as R-3, so that the entire lots from the Intracoastal to U. S. Highway 1 are in the same classification. He thought that was proper and that it was the contention of the representatives of Shooters at the meeting last summer. Lisa Landis, 620 N. E. 20th Lane, Watersedge, was in favor of making all of these residential because her townhouse is directly affected by this. She is a single woman, living alone, and did not want anything going in that would be bad for the neighborhood or her. Cynthia Greenhouse, Attorney at Law, 618 N. E. 20th Lane, Watersedge, once again referred to the petition signed by residents of Watersedge. She said they are very concerned and worried about what happened and how the lot next to them will be developed, both from the perspective of their property values and also for their quality of living. At the meeting in July of last year, previously referred to, Attorney Greenhouse said "Roland" and his Attorney appeared with a rendering showing trees and how beautiful it would be. At that time, they requested that the front third be downzoned from C-2 to R-3. She thought tonight, Mr. Walshak was speaking on their behalf. Mr. Walshak protested. Mr. Walshak took exception to Attorney Greenhouse's state- ments and said he was not here tonight on behalf of Shooters but was here on behalf of the City of Boynton Beach. When he asked before whether the City of Boynton Beach would be liable, he was voting for the City. Attorney Greenhouse said from the position Shooters appeared to be taking this evening, they were reneging on that statement previously made. Watersedge was concerned with any type of Commercial use going into the front third of that property, as they would be directly affected by it. Attorney Greenhouse said they are the second building in. 21 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACh, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Individuals who signed the petition are in the first build- ing in, and they will be directly next to whatever type of Commercial use can go in there. Attorney Greenhouse continued there was no question that any type of Commercial use that goes in on the front third of the parcel will increase the risk of crime or drug handling, if it is a 7-11 or a bar. She was sure there was no question in the minds of the Board that any Commercial use permitted would increase the chance of some type of undesirable element being associated with the front third of the parcel. It is right next door to their houses, and they do not want Commercial uses there. They want other people, who will have their homes there. Attorney Greenhouse expounded. She requested the Board to vote in favor of the down zoning. Mr. Ryder was there this afternoon and gathered that Waters- edge has predominantly year-round occupants. Attorney Greenhouse said they are not what you would consider a vacation home, where people come down a couple of months out of the year. The ma.jority of people live year-round. The people of Watersedge were thrilled with what happened with Boa~ Ramp Park. Attorney Greenhouse told of a woman being rapes a couple of years ago by an individual who came out of Morey's. The people of Watersedge hope the Board can do something about that undesirable bar being %here. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone el~e wished to speak in favor of the request, and there was no response. Patricia Rathburn, Attorney at Law, Atkins and Jennings, 1946 Power Street, Hollywood, representing Shooters of Boynton Beach, Inc., said the corporation purchased Lots 7, 8 and 9 in December of 1985, and they have a long term lease on Lot 6. They purchased the lots to go along with their leasehold interest an order to ensure that they would be able to continue the operation of their Shooters restaurant/ lounge and provide sufficient parking for the facility. Attorney Rathburn spoke to the President of her client, Shooters of Boynton Beach, Inc., and the President was quite surprised when he got the notice of rezoning. As indicated, the President of Shooters went to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting on June 15, 1986 and spoke vigorously against the Land Use Amendment, both the previous Land Use Amend- ment from C-4 to C-3 (item 4 above), and particularly this one from C-3 to R-3 on Lots 8 and 9. The President of Shooters indicated at that meeting that the corporation 22 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 purchased Lots 8 and 9 to protect their parking position and that they could not have purchased Lot 7 without purchasing Lots 8 and 9 all in one package. One of the questions Attorney Rathburn said the Board asked a little while ago was when you purchase something, do you purchase it because it has a particular zoning. In this particular case, that entered quite heavily in her client's decision to purchase Lots 8 and 9 with the frontage being Commercial on Federal Highway. At that meeting, the Presi- dent of Shooters indicated that he possibly could live with a down zoning from C-4 to C-3 on Lot 7, but that absolutely rezonigg of the frontage.on Lots 8 and 9 to Residential would economically be a hardship to them after having paid the money they paid for those lots. Attorney Rathburn said the meeting minutes of the June 30th, 1986 P&Z meeting show, as the Planner said, that, originally, the Planning Staff did not recommend that the fronts of Lots 8 and 9 be rezoned from C-3 to R-3. That apparently came up some time later, but, originally, it was not a part of the overall plan developed by the Planning Department. When the President of Shooters left the P&Z meeting, he was under the impression that the frontage on Lots 8 and 9 would not be changed from C-3 to any other zoning category. Attorney Rathburn said he was under the impression that the Board felt that Residential use on Federal Highway was not an appropriate use. As to the question of whether to buy property because it is zoned for a particular thing, Attorney Rathburn said her law firm represented Shooters of Boynton Beach when they purchased the lot and investigated the zoning before they entered into the contract. The President of Shooters spoke to people in the City to confirm what the zoning was on the lots before they ever entered into a contract. They were sure at that time it was Commercial. Attorney Rathburn informed all of Lots 7, 8 and 9 and the Watersedge property. Mr. Ryder that her client owns leases all of Lot 6. Lot 10 is Mrs. Huckle understood Attorney Rathburn to say her client was not opposed to the R-3 on the interior part of Lots 8 and 9. At the meeting, Attorney Rathburn said her client proposed that he could live with C-3 if the entire parcels 6, 7, 8 and 9, fronting on Federal and going all the way - 23 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 back to the water, were rezoned C-3. His reasoning for that, as reflected in the minutes, was that it would be possible to plan a better commercial facility with more area, rather than putting a strip of something on the front. If they could develop the entire parcel, it would be a much more attractive development. Mrs. Huckle asked Attorney Rathburn if it was her opinion that Shooters had never favored R-3 on any part of their property. Attorney Rathburn replied that her client bought the property, knowing the back of the property was R-3, but he hoped the property would be rezoned to C-3 so it could be unified with Lots 6 and 7, which would make it a block of C-3. The meeting minutes, which Attorney Rathburn had to rely on tonight, looked like there had not been any change in the character of the property since that time that would reflect that suddenly a Residential use on Federal Highway is the most attractive or even economically viable, or that a resi- dential use, from a planning standpoint, is superior to the C-3 already there. The property has been on the tax rolls for quite some time as C-3, and Attorney Rathburn said it definitely should remain C-3. Attorney Rathburn noticed there had been numerous references to a meeting where someone representing Shooters was in favor of, or suggested, rezoning the fronts of Lots 8 and 9 to R-3. She had a copy of the minutes, which she just got yesterday, and the minutes indicated that a Morton Goldstein, speaking for Roland Maranda, appeared at that meeting. When Attorney Rathburn spoke to the President of Shooters yester- day, she asked him who Mr. Goldstein was, and she told him Mr. Goldstein had appeared, representing Shooters of Boynton Beach. The President of Shooters indicated that he had never heard of Mr. Goldstein, had no idea of who he was and of what went on at the meeting. Attorney Rathburn could not speak for Roland Maranda, and she did not know who Mr. Goldstein was. Attorney Rathburn told the Board that Mr. Goldstein does not represent Shooters. A woman in the audience asked who Roland Maranda is. Attorney Rathburn replied that Roland Maranda is a partner in one of the organizations but not Shooters, but Roland Maranda does not represent Shooters. She did not even know if Roland Maranda was an officer of Shooters of Boynton Beach, Inc. Her law firm represents Shooters of BOynton Beach, Shooters of Fort Lauderdale, and Shooters of 24 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Miami. For the President of all of those organizations to tell Attorney Rathburn that he had absolutely no idea of who Morton Goldstein is and what representations he made to the Board caused concern about what went on that night. Mr. Walshak wished to clarify for the Board Members, who did not know what Attorney Rathburn was talking about, because she was disturbing the issue and making it vague. He said what Attorney Rathburn was talking about happened on July 2, 1986. Mr. Walshak knew because he was living in Watersedge at the time, and he attended the meeting in front of the City Commission. Roland Maranda had a prospective buyer for Lots 7, 8 and 9, who was contemplating building a very nice townhouse development, and he had a huge render- ing. Rumors were going around that all kinds of things would be built there, and th~ wanted to show what could be built there and what they were anticipating in the next Couple of months. Mr. Walshak Understood the deal sub- sequently fell through. Morton Goldstein, a buddy of Roland Maranda, got up in front of the Commission and identified himself as speaking on behalf of Shooters of Boynton Beach, and he said at that point and time if they had a buyer to build the residential units, there would be no objection from Shooters to rezoning the complete parcel R-3. Attorney Rathburn said she was reading from the minutes of July 2, 1986 which said, "Morton Goldstein, speaking for Roland Maranda," and then went on to say, "Mr. Goldstein stated he was appearing before the Council on behalf of Roland Maranda, who is developing a piece of property adjacent to Shooters". Nowhere in the minutes did it say he was the property owner, Shooters of Boynton Beach. It just said he was representing Roland Maranda. Attorney Rathburn said Mr. Goldstein obviously took the Board's time, and the Board assumed he was representing Shooters. She said the minutes were a little bit strange, but nowhere did Mr. Goldstein say he represented the property owner. Without the authority of the President of Shooters, Attorney Rathburn said Mr. Goldstein was not representing the property owner. Mrs. Huckle asked on what date Shooters purchased Lots 7 and 8. Attorney Rathburn answered that they purchased the property in December of 1985. The President of Shooters appeared at the June 16, 1986 P&Z Board meeting, at which time he spoke against the entire rezoning. - 25 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Mrs. Huckle observed that the President of Shooters just spoke at the P&Z Board meeting but did not come back for the City Commission meeting. She remarked that he made a big mistake. Whatever reason led him to believe that was the end of the matter when he spoke to the P&Z Board in June, Attorney Rathburn said the President of Shooters was obviously wrong, and the issues got confused. Mr. Walshak questioned why there was confusion when Mr. Goldstein and Roland Maranda represented themselves as own- ing the property, and they had a rendering of that particular property. He said there was no misrepresentation. Attorney Rathburn stated that her client is not in favor of R-3. They do not believe that R-3 residences fronting on Federal Highway is an appropriate use and fully believe that Lots 7, 8 and 9 should be C-3. Attorney Rathburn requested that rather than moving forward with a rezoning of the property from C-3 to R-3, the Board should direct the Planning Department, as Mr. Cannon indicated earlier that they could do, to restore Commercial land use on the parcel. At that point, her client would go along with any rezoning reqaest from C-4 to C-3, and bringing the Land Use back from Residential to C-3 on the fronts of Lots 8 and 9. Attorney Rathburn was suggesting that the Board reinitiate a Land Use Amendment to change ApplicatiOn C-2 to Commercial. Mrs. Buckle understood that these same proposals would be seen by the City Commission. Mr. Annunziato confirmed that was right with the exception of Lot 6. Mrs. Huckle told Attorney Rathburn she might make a note of that. Attorney Rathburn responded that the recommendations of the P&Z Board would be reviewed by the City Commission, and the Board does not have to pass a rezoning simply because the land use has been changed. It was her understanding that the land use was changed partially on the presentation made the evening of July 2nd. Attorney Rathburn reiterated that the Board had the ability to indicate to the City Staff that this Land Use Amendment was not an appropriate use of the property and to agree to change the property back to Commercial. Mr. Ryder observed that some of Watersedge is in Lot 10, and that is zoned C-3. He questioned who owns the area in Lot 10, fronting on the highway. Mr. Annunziato answered, "Watersedge." Mrs. Buckle inquired whether that was still 26 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 C-3. Mr o Ryder commented that the concern here apparently was the parcel that would affect Watersedge, which is Lot 10. Mr. Annunziato clarified the property in Lot 10, which lies in the C-3 zoning classification, is owned by the homeowners collectively, through their Association as common property, or individually, as homeowners of individual townhouses. Mr. Walshak had the same problem with this property as he did on the previous application. From the standpoint of legality~ he wondered how the City would stand, changing Commercial to Residential. Once again, Mr. Annunziato pointed out: (1) There is nothing in the law that suggests that local government is preempted from changing the zoning of any parcel of land. Zoning fluctuates. (2) The City has a charge to plan comprehensively with the adoption of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The theory is that the~ have an Obligation to put all land development ~egulations into cOnform~tyA with that, the zoning map being a land development regulation. vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone else wished to speak in opposition to the request. William Smith, owner of Lake City Trailer Park, said they had that little spot there, where everything else is Commercial, and he wondered why they picked that little spot. Mr. Annunziato said the question was why they were involved in this rezoning request. He explained it was for two reasons: (1) On recommendation from the City Staff, a proposal was made to the Planning and Zoning Board to change the land use for that property which was in Watersedge, Which was zoned C-3, used residentially, to a Residential category~ consistent with the use. (2) At the public hear- ings, residents in Watersedge appeared before the P&Z Board and the City Commission and requested that the Board consider and the Commission approve changing the land use for those properties north of theirs, and the P&Z Board and City Commission accommodated them. Mr. Annunziato told Mr. Smith it was a land use decision made by his appointed and elected officials. Mr. Smith really and truly felt that was unfair. If they were considering the people in those particular areas, ~hanging a Commercial spot just in that area alone was un- air to the rest of the people. Vice Chairman Wandelt said it is obvious there is more R-3 than Commercial there, and he thought Mr. Smith's question was out of order. 27 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Mr. Smith alluded to Sterling Village being changed to Residential and all of the condominiums in the southern part of the City. He said the uptown is going to Hell because of this business with Residential. Mr. Smith expounded. He understood this little spot was C-3. The Public Hearing Was Closed. A woman in the audience asked if this meant that if someone owns Commercial property on U. S. 1 and the property directly behind them is Residential, that the owners of the Residential can mass together, come before the P&Z Board, and request that the property in front be rezoned from Commercial to R1A. Mr. Annunziato answered, "That oppor- tunity always exists and always has existed. In fact, it has occurred in some instances." However, he said the City prefers to make those changes as a part of the Comprehensive Plan effort, which is why this change occurred, where you are dealing with more than just one property. Vice Chairman Wandelt emphasized that THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mrs. Huckle understood that the request was for a change from C-3 to R-3 on all lots, including Lots 8, 9 and 10. Vice Chairman Wandelt said parts of Lots 8 and 9 are in the Commercial area, and the other is in R-3. On the Watersedge property, going from C-3 to R-3, Mr. Blanchette wondered if it would make them non-conforming in any way, such as density. Mr. Cannon answered that it would not because the R-3 zoning district allows multiple family housing. C-3 also allows multiple family housing, and he explained. Mr. Cannon believed the Watersedge development was built in conformance with our current R-3. Mr. Annunziato informed Mrs. Huckle that it is not a PUD. Mrs. Huckle noted that Attorney Rathburn mentioned that her client was favoring C-3 on the frontage of Lots 8 and 9 because it was not conducive to Residential, but apparently Watersedge made a very successful residential development to include a C-3 parcel just to the south. That argument amused Mrs. Huckle. Attorney Rathburn pointed out that her client paid the price for Commercial property. There were further comments. It seemed to Mr. Lehnertz that there was a nice residential development on Lot 10, and it appeared that Lots 8 and 9 - 28 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 could have the same type of development that would be conducive not only to Watersedge but to the area as a whole. Since the area to the south is Recreational, it seemed to him that it would be a more homogeneous type of solution to make the front areas R-3 as opposed to Commercial. Mrs. Huckle moved to approve the request, seconded by Mr. Ryder. Motion carried 6-0. 6. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Boat Club Park Site (Application C-3) Carmen S. Annunziato City of Boynton Beach 2010 North Federal Highway Request to rezone from C-3 Community Commercial to REC Recreation for the purpose of implementing the Evalu- ation and Appraisal Report Mr. Cannon said the C-3 zoning reflects the former use of the property. There were formerly a number of small cottages, as well as a bait shop. It has been redeveloped into a City park. The property occupied by Morey's will stay at C-3 zoning. However, Morey's is a non-conforming use, even in the C-3 zoning district. Mr. Cannon explained to a woman in the audience what non-conforming meant. He answered further questions from the audience about Morey's. Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the request. Cynthia Greenhouse, Attorney at Law, 618 N. E. 20th Lane, agreed with Vice Chairman Wandelt that they were upgrading and downzoning. It was her opinion that the City was attempt- ing to conform the zoning designation to what has actually occurred on the property. Watersedge was thrilled and thought what the City had done was beautiful. They were in favor of the request. Michael Greenhouse, Lisa Landis, and of the Watersedge complex, were also request. Lee Haberman, Members in favor of the Vice Chairman Wandelt asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the request. There was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. There was discussion about the location of Morey's. 29 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JULY 28, 1987 Mrs. Huckle moved to approve the request, seconded by Mr. Lehnertz. Motion carried 6'0. FUTURE MEETINGS Meeting of P&Z Board Mr. Annunziato reminded the Members that the next meeting of the Board will be on August 11, 1987 at 7:30 P. M., at the S. W. corner on the first floor of Pineland Plaza. Meetings through August 6th Mr. Annunziato announced that all meetings through August 6~ 1987 will be in the City Commission Chambers. From that point on, the P&Z Board will be meeting in Pine- land Plaza. Vice Chairman Wandelt informed the people from Watersedge that everything that was on the agenda tonight would come before the City Commission on August 6, 1987 at 7:30 P. M., and they should be there. Mrs. Huckle advised that it will be one of the last meetings in the Commission Chambers. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting properly adjourned at 9:55 P. M. Patricia Ramseyer Recording Secretary (Three Tapes) - 30 - ATTACHMENT A Parcel 13-1 \ Owner: City of Boynton Beach 120 Eas~ Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Legal Description: Rolling Green Ridge First Addition, Tract A (Less N. i~0 ft of westerly 500 ft. in 0R710P380, easterly 140 ft. of northerly 158.64 ft. in 0R883P148, west 110 ft. of east 260.94 ft. of north 158.64 ft. in 0R2165P1873 and westerly 449.30 ftl of southerly 786.60 ft. in 0R2072P1445). Parcel 13-4 Owner: City of Boynton Beach 120 East Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Legal Description: Rolling Green Ridge 1st Addition, westerly 449.30 ft. of southerly 786.60 ft. of Tract A in 0R2238P580 (less Interstate 95 right-of-way and easterly 170 ft. of westerly 182.13 ft. of southerly 161.83 ft. as in 0R4171P162~. - Parcel 13-6 Owner: American Legion Post c/o Leroy Harris 212 NW 12th Avenue Boynton Beach, FL 33435 Legal Description: Rolling Green Ridge 1st Addition, 182.13 ft. of southerly 161.83 ft. easterly 170 ft. of westerly of Tract A as in 0R4131P162.~ EXHIBIT A ATTACHMENT A The south 150 feet of the north 1,455.5 feet of the west 1/2 of the north west 1/4 of Government Lot 2, lying east of the Florida East Coast Railway and the south 150 feet of the north 1,455.5 feet of Government Lot 2, (less the west 94 feet for State Road 5 right-of-way), together with Hulls Subdivision Lot 1 (less the west 94 feet for State Road 5 right-of-way), less those portions lying west of the northerly extension of the west line of Lot 10 of Lakeside Gardens. EXHIBIT B