Loading...
Minutes 10-14-86MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1986 AT 7:30 P. M. PRESENT Walker "Marty" Trauger, Chairman George De Long Marilyn-Huckle John Pagliarulo Simon Ryder Robert Wandelt Garry Winter, Vice Chairman Leonard Mann, Alternate William Schultz, Alternate Carmen Annunziato, Director of Planning Tim Cannon Senior City Planner Jim Golden, Assistant City Planner Chairman Trauger called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M., introduced the Board Members, Mr. Annunziato, Mr. Cannon, Mr. Golden, and the Recording Secretary. ~e recognized the presence in the audience of Mayor Nick Cassandra; Vice Mayor Carl zimmerman; Councilman Ezell Hester; City Manager Peter Cheney; Owen Anderson, Executive Vice President of the Greater Boynton Beach Chamber of Commerce, and Mrs. Anderson; Sam Scheiner, Vice Chairman, Community Redevelopment Agency; and Barbara Schwertfager, Secretary to Mr. Annunziato. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. COMMUNICATIONS None. OLD BUSINESS Lighting at McDonald's Parkinq Lot Mrs. Huckle inquired if the Board had anything further on the final disposition of the lighting situation for McDonald's parking lot. Mr. Golden report~ed that the original site plan submitted by McDonald's was very detailed with regard to the lighting. It went back to the Technical Review Board (TRB); they supplemented the original site plan with additional information. Mr. Golden informed Mr. Ryder that the TRB approved metal halide lighting, subject to TRB review of the lighting plan to insure that it was provided in a safe and efficient manner. The applicant is about to be notified of the TRB's review. There were comments. Mrs. Huckle determined that the var%ance was reenforced by the TRB. - 1 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1986 Mrs. Huckle moved that the minutes be approved as presented, seconded by Mr. Wandelt. Motion carried 6-0. Vice Chairman Winter abstained from voting as he was not present at the meeting of September 9. A. PUBLIC HEARINGS ABANDONMENT Project Name: Agent: Owner: Legal Description: Location: Description: Waterview at Boynton Lakes (postponed at August 12, 1986 meeting) Michael Puder, Southeast Development Enterprises, Inc. Southeast Development Enterprises, Inc. Lennar Homes, Inc. Florida Properties of Boynton, Inc. HMF Investment, Inc. See "Addendum A" attached to the original copy of these minutes East side of Congress Avenue, south of Hypoluxo Road Request for the abandonment of a portion of a 10' utility easement (4' reduction) in plats Nos. 5 and 6 at Boynton Lakes in order to allow for the addition of patios/screened enclosures Mr. Golden said the easements to be reduced to six feet are located in Plats 5 and 6 of Boynton Lakes and were shown in three overlays. The second overlay was for Plat 5, and the third was for Plat 6. The area north of the L-19 Canal, which includes Plats 4, 5, and 6 of Boynton Lakes is currently owned by a joint venture. Mr. Golden advised that the applicant has an option to pur- chase the single family lots where the easements are to be abandoned. Under this system, the applicant does not own the lot until it is sold to the buyer. Currently, the applicant owns some of the lots where the easements are to be abandoned, while the remaining lots are still under the control of the joint venture. Therefore, the applicant requires the cooperation of the joint venture in this pro- ceeding. - 2 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Prior to the meeting, correspondence from the joint venture agreeing to enter into the abandonment agreement for Plats 4, 5, and 6 was distributed to the Board Members. Mr. Golden pointed out that no replatting is required for Plats 5 and 6. Also, they do not incur any costs above and beyond what the applicant has to pay for the application. Mr. Golden continued that the applicant was requesting a reduction in the ten foot utility easement to six feet to allow for an additional room to extend concrete patios and screen enclosures. Screen enclosures would be allowed with- in eight feet of the rear property line. With a reduction in the easement, it would allow for that, and Mr. Golden explained. Mr. Ryder asked if they will be roofed over and if it would encroach on the rear setback. Mr. Golden answered that the abandonment is not related to the rear setback. The area of where they would build or extend the patio screened enclos- ures would not allow for a hard roof because it is not with- in the building setback areao With a reduction from ten feet to six feet, Mr. Golden said given the approval for this development, it would allow for fully screened enclosures or the concrete patio. The roof enclosure with the hard top would not come into the picture as a result of this request unless something else changes in the future. Chairman Trauger asked if the owner of the 9roperty could go ahead and put a hard roof on it. Mr. Ryder replied, "Not without coming back," and he questioned whether they were aware of that. This would possibly affect their request for abandonment. Mr. Golden informed Mr. Ryder that the appli- cant is aware that a master plan modification would be required to allow for the hard roof in that area. Also, as part of the procedure for abandonment, Mr. Golden said the City Engineer has notified the public utilities. From the responses received, none of the public utilities objected. In addition, the City Utilities Department also does not object to the abandonment request. Therefore, it was recommended that the abandonment of the ten foot easement be approved, subject to the dedication of the six foot ease- ment prior to the abandonment of the ten foot easement. The process the applicant is following is to abandon the ten - 3 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 foot easement and dedicate a six foot easement to replace it. However, the six foot easement should be recorded and in effect prior to the abandonment of the ten foot easement. Mrs. Huckle had difficulty understanding what four feet would do for the project. Mr. Golden replied that they cannot build the structure in the easement area, so with a reduction to six feet, they can build a concrete ~atio on the addi- tional four feet, or they will have another two feet to build a screened enclosure. Mrs. Huckle asked how much room they would actually have without any easement. Mr. Golden answered that it would depend on the specific model and lot (where the lot is situated and the size of the unit) as to how large an enclosure they could build on their patio. Mr. Annunziato interjected that the minimum rear yard struc- ture setback for roofed over structures in Boynton Lakes Planned Unit Development (PUD) would be ten feet, based on their analyses. However, if someone was inclined to construct a screened enclosure, they would fall under the single family home requirements, which would allow them to go within eight feet of the rear property line with a screened enclosure. However, with the ten foot easements which were platted, it is not possible to do that because you cannot construct over the utilities. The City will not issue building permits. By allowing this to happen, Mr. Annunziato said someone can pour a slab, or he could install a screened enclosure with- in eight feet of his rear property line. Vice Chairman Winter asked who would police that if he did not apply for a permit. Mr. Annunziato answered that it would be a Codes Enforcement issue. It would be policed by the Building Department and the neighborso There was discussion. Michael Puder, President, Southeast Development Enterprises, Inc., 4200 North Congress Avenue, Lantana, Florida 33462, told Chairman Trauger he understood the easements, setbacks, and what they are doing with it. Vice Chairman Winter asked if he understood no one could build anything on top of the screened enclosure. Mr. Puder understood that. Chairman Trauger asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor or in opposition to the proposal. There was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. - 4 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Mr. De Long moved that the application for abandonment be approved, subject to staff comments, and subject to the dedication of the six foot easement prior to the abandonment of the ten foot easement. Vice Chairman Winter seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. ANNEXATION e Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Diaz Plaza None Pedro M. Diaz North side of West Boynton Beach Boulevard, approximately 300 feet east of Knuth Dairy Road That portion of Tract 7, PALM BEACH FARMS COMPANY, PLAT NO. 8, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 73, lying North of right-of-way of State Road 804 Request to annex a 1.18 acre tract of land LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT AND REZONING Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Diaz Plaza None Pedro M. Diaz North side of West Boynton Beach Boulevard, approximately 300 feet east of Knuth Dairy Road That portion of Tract 7, PALM BEACH FARMS COMPANY, PLAT NO. 8, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 73, lying North of right-of-way of State Road 804 Request to show annexed land as Local Retail Commercial and to rezone from CN (Neighborhood Commercial) to C-3 (Community Commercial) for the pur- pose of constructing an 11,040 square foot mixed use commercial building - 5 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Mr. Golden read the memorandum dated September 24, 1986, addressed to the P&Z Board, from Mr. Annunziato. Chairman Trauger asked how far this parcel was from Winchester Park Boulevard. Mr. Golden estimated it was 1,500 feet and informed Chairman Trauger the zoning in Palm Beach County to the immediate east is Neighborhood Commercial. He believed there was different zoning further to the east. The Planning Department recommended that the applications for annexation, future land use element amendment and re- zoning be approved, subject to staff comments contained in Exhibit E in the report, concurrence by Palm Beach County as to the request to annex and zone in the City, and also subject to items 1 through 9 listed on page 6 of the report. Pedro M. Diaz, 2867 Banyan Boulevard Circle, N. W., Boca Raton, Florida 33431, had not read the staff comments. Mr. Annunziato summarized the comments by saying the find- ings cited as 1 through 9 were included in the recommen- dations. The only staff comment was from the Planning Department and said, "Billboard located on southeastern por- tion of property to be removed within sixty (60) days of annexation." Mr. Annunziato explained that it has keen the program for the City that when properties are annexed, billboards must be removed from them. Mr. Diaz agreed and had no problem with that. Chairman Trauger asked if anyone wished to speak in favor or against the proposal. There was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. De Long complimented the Planning Department on a very comprehensive report. He moved to approve the annexation, to show the annexed land as Local Retail Commercial and rezone from Neighborhood Commercial to C-3, subject to staff comments. Mr. Pagliarulo seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. REZONING Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Bethesda Memorial Hospital Medical Office Building Keith Taylor Universal Medical Buildings, Inc. O. Alan Jared III, et al. South Seacrest Boulevard at S. W. 26th Avenue, northwest corner - 6 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Legal Descrigtion: Description. See "Addendum B" attached to the original copy of these Minutes Request for a rezoning from PU (Public Usage) to C-1 (Office/Professional) to allow for redevelopment of the existing site and an adjacent parcel for a new medical office building in affiliation with Bethesda Memorial Hospital Mr. Golden read the memorandum addressed to the P&Z Board, from him, dated September 24, 1986. Chairman Trauger questioned whether the apartments were torn down too. Mr. Ryder answered that the building on the corner and the apartments to the west were torn down. If 26th Avenue is abandoned, Mrs. Huckle wondered how the front of the hospital would be accessed from Seacrest. Mr. Annunziato answered that to the Planning Department's know- ledge, there are no plans to change that. If it was intended, that access change would be subject to an amendment to the existing site plan, which would be reviewed by the Board and Council. Mr. Annunziato informed Chairman Trauger that 26th Avenue is a public street that goes nowhere and now serves one property owner. With all of the property to the north going into the joint venture, the street serves one property owner. It does not meet the qualifications for a publicly dedicated right-of-way. Mrs. Huckle asked if 26th Avenue has not been the access road from Seacrest to the emergency room, the front of the hospi- tal, and the whole horse shoe thing. Mr. Annunziato did not think there was any intention to change that. There is a request to abandon it, but the physical characteristics of the street will likely not change. It will be maintained by the hospital. Mr. Ryder clarified that it will be main- tained for its present use. Mr. Annunziato added that it will be privately owned by the hospital. If there is a desire to change that access, it would be an amendment to the site plan which would go back through a review process. Mr. Annunziato told Chairman Trauger the one property owner has a driveway just south of Kessel's building. MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Kirk Dunlap, Vice President, Universal Medical Buildings, Inc., 839 North Jefferson Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202, came~forward. Chairman Trauger asked what the staff comments were. Mr. Annunziato answered that the only staff comment was that if this was approved, they should direct their lighting away from the houses to the north. Mr. Dunlap had no problem with that. Mr. Ryder recalled a question was raised as to what would happen in the event of abandonment of 26th Avenue. He asked if they would assume that the present usage would continue. Mr. Dunlap said that was a correct assumption. Mr. Ryder wondered if they would ask for an additional curb cut just to the north of 26th Avenue, because of the fact that the present corner building will come down, and that will be part of their new development. Mr. Dunlap confirmed that they would not require another curb cut and added that their site plan does not call for that. Mrs. Huckle inquired whether it would be mostly parking. Mr. Dunlap replied that as the site plan shows, it will be a combination of the building and parking. Chairman Trauger asked whether this would provide adequate parking. Mr. Annunziato answered that they had not addressed the site plan issues specifically. The issue before the Board was a change in zoning. Chairman Trauger asked if anyone wished to speak in favor or in opposition to the proposal. There was no response. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. De Long commented that it was a clear cut decision because they were looking at a permitted use under the present zoning. All they were doing was putting a sanction on it being able to be done for a profit. It was very clear that it would not be a further incursion on the commercial property there and that the whole area in the future Comprehensive Land Use Plan is designated to go C-1. He did not think there was a lot to ponder over. Mr. De Long moved that the rezoning be approved, subject to staff comments with regard to the lighting. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. ABANDONMENT e Project Name: Bethesda Memorial Hospital Medical Office BUilding - 8 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Keith Taylor Universal Medical Buildings, Inc. City of Boynton Beach S. W. 26th Avenue and a portion of S. W. 2nd Street, between the exist- ing hospital complex and the West- chester Heights subdivision See "Addendum C" attached to the original copy of these Minutes Request for the abandonment of a 50' wide local street (S. W. 26th Avenue) and a portion of a 50' local street (S. W. 2nd Street) to allow for integration of the proposed medical office building with the existing hospital complex Mr. Golden again read from Mr. Annunziato's memo of September 24 to the P&Z Board. The north 25 feet would go to O. Alan Jared III, and his Associates, and the south 25 feet would go to the hospital. The City Engineer notified the utility companies, and responses were received from Southern Bell, Group W Cable, Florida Public Utilities, and Florida Power and Light. Except for Group W Cable, all of the utilities have an interest in the right-of-way and will agree to abandon the right-of-way, if granted the appropriate easements. This also holds true for the City's Utilities Department. The City Engineer recommended approval of the abandonment, subject to the entire right-of-way becoming a utility ease- ment. Mr. Ryder assumed they would not be denying any exist- ing property owner access by means of a public street, and there will not be anybody else but the hospital. Mr. Golden explained that the two parties requesting the abandonment are the two that are affected and abut the right-of-way. In other words, Mr. Ryder said no one else will be left. Mr. Golden replied that the single family home has a private driveway to Seacrest, and everything else in Westchester Heights has alternate accesses to the north. Mr. Annunziato interjected that it was the recommendation of the City staff that because of the number of utilities within and above the street, it will leave the entire street with utility easements and for access purposes by the City's utilities and other companies. Chairman Trauger added that the applicant will maintain the streets. - 9 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Mr. De Long asked if the applicant understood that and the utility easements. Kirk Dunlap, Vice President, Universal Medical Buildings, 839 North Jefferson Street, Milwaukee, WisconSin 53202, answered affirmatively. Chairman Trauger wondered if he understood it must be maintained as an ease- ment for the City and the other utility companies. Mr. Dunlap replied that they understand that. Mrs. Huckle did not understand how the arrangement would work, if the north 25 feet of the street goes to Dr. Jared and his Associates and the south 25 feet goes to the hospital. Mr. Annunziato answered that the Statutes provide that when rights-of-way are abandoned, they are split down the middle with half going to each adjacent property owner. He suspected that the Tax Appraiser or title companies would then have to determine which property would accrue to each one. Mrs. Huckle asked if Mr. Dunlap represented both property owners. Mr. Dunlap replied that was correct. He added that he was representing Universal Medical Buildings, which will be developing the site previously described. Mr. Dunlap said Robert Hill from the hospital may want to represent the hospital. As the hospital had an interest in this, Mr. Annunziato thought Mr. Hill should come forward. Robert B. Hill, Executive Vice President, Bethesda Memorial Hospital, 2815 South Seacrest Boulevard, explained that presently, Dr. Jared and his Associates are the owners of the two parcels on the north side of S. W. 26th Avenue. They are in the process of making up their minds on whether they are going to sell the property t° the hospital or also join with the hospital in a venture to produce the medical office building as the site plan. The rezoning application was Dr. Jared's property, but the other is a joint documenta- tion from Dr. Jared, his Associates, and the hospital. The whole project is going to be done with the three parties or with just two of the parties. Those final details have not been worked out yet. That was why they made the application from the legal standpoints. Mr. Ryder asked if Bethesda Hospital concurred with the request for abandonment. Mr. Hill answered affirmatively and added that they understood and agreed with the 50 foot easement because, as Mr. Dunlap explained, S. W. 26th Avenue will remain in that location because it is the main access drive to the hospital emergency room and will also be the main access drive to the office building. - 10- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Mr. Ryder commented that apparently two ownerships are involved. Bethesda Hospital is not developing the new medi- cal center. Mr. Hill informed him that they will be. Right now, Dr. Jared is the owner of the land. The hospital is negotiating with Dr. Jared to purchase the land to make the hospital the owner. If Dr. Jared does not wish to do that, he might participate in a joint venture with them to develop the project. Either way, the hospital will have an interest in the building. AS no one else in the audience wished to speak in favor or against the proposal, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Ryder moved to approve the request for abandonment, subject to staff comments, vice Chairman Winter seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. B. SUBDIVISIONS MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION 1. Project Name: Meadows 300 Tract D (vizcaya) Agent: David Flinchum, A.S.L.A. Owner: The Babcock Company Location: West side of Congress Avenue, south of Hypoluxo Road Legal Description: The Meadows 300 - Plat No. 1, Section 7, Twp. 45 South, Range 43 East Description: Request for master plan approval for a replat of Tract D to allow for the elimination of 7 single family lots in order to provide for the addition of a private recreation facility On September 16, Mr. Golden said the city Council made a determination of no substantial change to the master plan modification. The recreation area will include a pool, pool house, tennis courts, sun tan area, fitness area, and putting green. There will be 24 single family homes in Tract D. The Technical Review Board recommended approval of the request, subject to staff comments. Mrs. Huckle asked if there was a recreational facility in the original concept. Mr. Golden replied that a copy of the original concept would show that no private recreation was planned for Tract D. Any recreation facilities they would have access to would be the private recreation for the entire - 11- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Meadows planned Unit Development (PUD), as well as public recreation facilities that will be built in the future by the city. Mrs. Huckle asked if this was to be more exclusive, and if that was why they would have their own recreational compound. Mr. Annunziato explained that this would be in addition to private recreation amenities that are in the Meadows. David Flinchum, A.S.L.A., Wantam & ASSociates, Inc., Consulting Engineers, 2000 Lombard Street, West Palm Beach, 33407, said the proposed recreational island in the center of the project is for the use of the 24 single family homes. They propose two tennis courts, a pool, club house, small cabana, a jogging trail around the perimeter of the island, and a putting green. Chairman Trauger inquired whether there would be a public meeting room and who would maintain it. Mr. Flinchum replied that it will be maintained by the 24 homes. Chairman Trauger asked if it would be a homeowners association. Mr. Flinchum answered affirmatively. Mr. Annunziato informed Chairman Trauger that there is a facility in each of the primary, private amenity areas in the PUD for meetings. This is just additional recreation. They still are members of the primary association, so they have that amenity to access plus their own amenity. Mrs. Huckle asked if this would be their highest priced section or if there would be others that will be equally as exclusive. Mr. Flinchum believed Babcock had another project (Cloverbend) in the immediate area, but this was the only one he was involved with. Mrs. ~uckle wondered how many square feet the homes would have. Mr. Flinchum thought they were 2,000 square feet. The price varies from $140,000 to $160,000. Mr. De Long asked if Mr. Flinchum was familiar with the staff comments. He answered, "No." Mr. Ryder referred to the comments from Don Jaeger, chief Plans Review Inspector, and asked in what instance they were relative. In PUDs, Mr. Annunziato explained that they are always-attempting to clarify the building envelope because they do not have standard structure setbacks, except where they abut publicly dedicated rights-of-waY. Those setbacks have to be established by the city Council. Through this - 12- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 process, Mr. Jaeger is establishing for the Building Depart- ment and the city, with the concurrence of the council, the building envelope for the houses in this tract. Mr. De Long questioned whether Mr. Flinchum was aware of the setback requirements and envelope requirements Mr. Annunziato was talking about. ~e asked if Mr. Flinchum read them. Mr. Flinchum replied that Mr. Golden just showed them to him, and they will comply with whatever the setbacks are. Mr. Annunziato added that the front setback is a setback on a publicly dedicated right-of-way. Chairman Trauger asked if this Babcock Company was the same as the furniture company. Mr. Flinchum replied that it is a branch of Weyerhauser. Mr. De Long moved to approve the master plan modification application, subject to staff comments. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. C. SITE PLAN Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Boynton Center Plaza Len Kirscke Leonard Briscoe West side of U. S. Highway No. 1, approximately 1,125 feet north of Gulfstream Boulevard The Westerly 150' of the Easterly 167.83' of the Southerly 200' of lot shown as Tract "A" (as measured parallel with the South and East lines of said Tract "A"), AMENDED PLAT OF TRADE WIND ESTATES, Palm Beach CountY, Florida Request for site plan approval to construct a 5,320 square foot mixed use commercial building on .66 acres On'September 16th, Mr. Golden said the city Council approved a request for annexation and rezoning to C-3 for the subject parcel. The request is submitted in anticipation of the adoption of the second ordinance to annex and rezone the property. To the north of the property is the Midway Garden Center. To the east, across Federal Highway, is Gulfstream Carpet. - 13 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 To the south is a mobile home park. The applicant proposes to construct a building consisting of seven bays. The build- ing will be of masonry construction with a stucco finish. The Technical Review Board (TRB) recommended approval, sub- ject to staff comments. With regard to the comments, Mr. Golden said access to the rear of the building and access to Federal Highway were two primary concerns of the TRB. The TRB made a finding that both of those potential problems could be alleviated without major modification by shifting the building and parking lot forward somewhat and reducing the landscape strip, which is wider than required by Code. As far as the access (two way driveways on Federal Highway, both north and south), Mr. Golden said they should be reduced to one way. The north will be an entrance, and the south will be an exit. This will help to minimize the northbound, left turn movement through the existing median cut on Federal Highway. Mr. Golden pointed out that the applicant will have to dedicate a 15 foot utility easement along the front of his property and will have to extend water and sewer from the Gulfstream Mall to the northern limit of his property. A memo from the Forester was added to the staff comments. There was discussion about the location of the property. Len Kirschke, 501 Lakewood Drive, 99B, Jupiter, Florida 33458, was aware of all of the staff comments and had some questions on a couple of them. Mr. Kirschke referred to comment ~2 in the memorandum dated October 8 from Don Jaeger, Chief Plans Review Inspector, and said a sidewalk is already located there. He did not know if he was to repair it. Mr. De Long asked if it is five feet wide because if it is not, Mr. Kirschke would probably have to take all of the existing sidewalk out and put a new one there. Mr. Kirschke told Chairman Trauger a five foot sidewalk would be no problem. With reference to comment 94 in the memorandum dated October 7, from Peter V. Mazzella, Utility Inspector, Mr. Kirschke said they are tying into a six inch water main at the north- east corner of the Gulfstream shopping center. It seemed to him that to go from six inches to eight inches would reduce the water flow. Mr. Annunziato informed Mr. Kirschke that he would probably be on a dead end water main for some period of time. The eight inch water main will provide for greater water delivery - 14 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 than a six inch water main, even though it ties into a six, because it is a dead end water main. The eight inch will provide more water to the site than a six in case of fire. Mr. Kirschke asked if it would be a dead end or if it would continue on. Mr. Annunziato replied that the assumption is that it will continue northward. He gave an example and stated that he was sure that would all be looped as proper- ties develop. In the interim, it would be a dead end water maino vice Chairman Winter asked if that would not be a loss of pressure. Mr. Annunziato was thinking more water would be available from the eight inch main, even though it would be tying onto the six inch main, than from a six tied onto a six. Mr. Ryder thought the fact that it dead ends made it a proper request. They do not know what will happen in the future. Mr. Ryder explained to Mr. Kirschke that the larger the diameter, the less pressure loss there is. Mr. De Long said they were thinking of fire equipment. There was discussion. Mr. Kirschke asked what the advantage to this was. Mr. Annunziato replied that it enhances fire protection. Chairman Trauger asked Mr. Kirschke if he would agree to an eight inch line. Mr. Kirschke replied that he would have to. There was more discussion. Mr. Kirschke drew attention to comment ~2 in memo date~ .4 S t. D. Thrasher, Police Department, an~ sala October 9 fro~__g~A ~.~ildin~ codes that a light has toLb~A he was sure wl~n ~ ~ _ ~^~ ,~,~1 be seven doors a~ ~B~ mounted at each exit aOo~. ~ ..... - - -'--~ if · din with lights on them, an~ ne asmeu rear of the bull . .g _ ~:_~.~ It seemed to him that the would need thiS extra ~9~· - ...... ~to the~e would be an awful lot of l~ht~s ~[ a~~park- explained that door mounted lighting P lng lot lighting. It lights the door. Mr. Kirschke said he was speaking of the rear of the building. In the rear of the building there is no parking; there is a driveway. He asked if they would need seven lights for the driveway. After discussion, Mr. Annunziato said he had used it in terms of a parking lot and explained that the driveway is within the direction of the parking lot regulations. The applicant has to have parking lot lighting for all areas of parking in all driveways. Mr. Annunziato said door mounted lights do not qualify for parking lot lighting. The idea of - 15- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 the photocell is that they not be tied into a house where they can be turned off. Obviously, the Police would be very dismayed if they were patroling at 3:00 A. M. and the lights were turned off. Mr. Kirschke was at the meeting when they brought up the lighting at McDonald's. He asked if there was any type of lighting they require. Mr. Annunziato replied, "High pressure sodium." Chairman Trauger asked if Mr. Kirschke would agree to the lighting on the driveway. Mr. Kirschke answered, "Yes." Vice Chairman Winter asked about the renaming of the project. Mr. Krischke answered that it will be called "Briscoe Plaza". Mr. Krischke hated to cut down the green area but said that was what they will have to do. They will enlarge the drive to the rear of the building by doing so. Mr. Krischke informed Mrs. Huckle that the curb cuts are two way. In talking to Mr. Golden, Mr. Krischke could see where there would be a problem, so they will cut the driveways down to 12 feet instead of 24 feet. There will be an ingress to the north, and an egress to the south. Mrs. Huckle wondered if cutting it down from 24 to 12 feet would eliminate the problem. Mr. Krischke explained that with the cut through on Federal Highway, with the larger driveway to the north, people might tend to cut across traffic into there. He elaborated on how it could be a traffic problem. Chairman Trauger asked what type of business they were targeting towards. Mr. Krischke replied that they are hoping to get small retailers like beauty salons, barber shops, ~ little convenience store, and other conveniences for people around there. Mrs. Huckle asked if a dumpster was in the southwest corner. Mr. Krischke answered affirmatively. Mrs. Huckle moved to approve the site plan request for Briscoe Plaza, subject to staff comments. Mr. Ryder seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. Staff Comments Process As a couple of the applicants tonight did not seem to be aware of the staff comments, City Manager Cheney asked Mr. - 16 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Annunziato to explain that on the Friday prior to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the staff comments are made available to the applicants. Mr. Annunziato said they are hand delivered to the applicants when they come in to make their Community Appearance Board applications. Oftentimes, the person picking up the CAB application may not be the person making the presentation. Mr. Annunziato wanted to point out that there is a procedure where the City attempts to advise people. Most of the applicants are aware of that process and are prepared. Mr. Annunziato informed Mr. Ryder that applicants are advised of the staff comments, and this usually occurs on the Wednesday or Thursday before the P&Z meeting. By Friday, a packet is usually available to the applicant. SITE PLAN MODIFICATIONS 2. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: The Grove Shopping Center Goldenholz-Fischer Architects and Planners, P.A. The Grove Partners Limited U. S. Highway-No. 1 at Old Dixie Highway, west side See "Addendum D" attached to the original copy of these minutes Request for approval of an amended site plan to allow for a 12,524 decrease in retail square footage, an increase in the size of the cinema from 4 to 6 screens (1,470 seats) including a modified shared parking allocation and a change in parking lot layout and design Due to the increase in the size of the cinema, Mr. Golden said the applicant is also proposing a decrease in the retail floor space due to the increase in the size of the cinema and parking for the cinema, the elimination of the junior department store in the northwest corner, and elimi- nation of the egress driveway onto Old Dixie Highway in the southeast corner. The applicant was forced to refigure the site plan to route the traffic from the rear of the shopping center out to the main entrance because the applicant could not obtain a County turnout permit for the egress driveway on Old Dixie Highway. - 17 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 The basic configuration of the shopping center is essentially the same with the exception of the items noted. As a result of the elimination of the egress driveway onto Old Dixie Highway and the incorporation of previous staff comments, Mr. Golden said the site functions in a more efficient and safer manner. The revised shared parking analysis, based on the same methodology as the previous study, results in a slightly larger buffer than the previous approval. Mr. Golden said the previous was just over 10%. The current is just over 13%. The Technical Review Board recommended approval of the site plan and the shared parking allocations, subject to staff comments. Mr. Pagliarulo drew attention to comment 91 by Don Jaeger, Chief Plans Review Inspector, Building Department, and asked what a precast unit had to do with that building complying with the Code. Mr. Golden answered that it was one of those concrete fences where you have slats, and the posts hold the slats in place. They cannot have that, according to the Code. Mr. Pagliarulo also noted from the comment that the buffer wall was to be constructed of "masonry material, stucco, and then painted." Mr. Golden said the standard comment with regard to dumpster enclosures and buffer walls is stucco finish with coloring to match the building. Mr. Pagliarulo determined that it would not necessarily have to be painted. Mrs. Huckle asked why the Code objected to that type of wall construction. Mr. Annunziato informed her that they are not as substantial and are not constructed as well. Therefore, their life is not as great. Mrs. Huckle wanted to know the reason for the refusal of the curb cut on Dixie. Mr. Annunziato said it was the angle of the intersection. The County Engineer wanted a 90° inter- section. When the applicant attempted to put in a portion of that driveway in a 90° form, it so aborted the plan, it was just as well to close the driveway, redirect it into the parking lot, and exit out the main driveway. Chairman Trauger noticed a lot of beautiful trees in there, and said the trees left are very good trees. Mr. Annunziato said all of the trees on site will be incorporated into the site plan either in place or moved on site. He thought - 18 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Palm Beach County picked up a few mangoes. Trees on this site were a primary concern because you will not find that species anywhere in Florida. Because of that, the City worked very closely with the applicant. Mr. Ryder noticed the City Forester/Horticulturist had addressed it too. There was discussion. Bob MciIntyre, Project Architect, Goldenholz-Fischer Archi- tects &Planners, P.A., 2400 West Cypress Creek Road, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309, came forward. Chairman Trauger asked him if he understood the staff comments, including the most r~ecent ones of the Horticulturist. Mr. McIntyre replied that he did, and he was in agreement. According to the second comment in Mr. Hallahan's memo, Chairman Trauger said mangoes are along the north end. Mr. Annunziato explained that mangoes are not a good parking lot tree. Had the applicant been able~ to leave them in place, they would haVe been a buffer tree, but because of the installation of utilities, they will be replaced with a tree that has a wide stature and which is fairly tall. Mr. McIntyre said they provided numerous landscape islands along the northern property line to provide for a good, solid buffer of trees. Mr. De Long recalled they extensively covered that in the original hearings, and the applicants had to bring in a good number of trees. He imagined they saved what they could save and could not imagine mangoes in a parking lot. Mr. De Long moved to apprOve the site plan, subject to staff comments, including the comments by the Forester/Horti- culturist and the comments on shared parking. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Project Name: Agent: Owner-. Location: Legal Description: Oakwood Square Shopping Center Edward Duggan Harold S. Wenal, Trustee Congress Avenue at Old Boynton Road, southeast corner A portion of tracts 61 thru 67 inclusive, as shown on that plat of the subdivision of Section 29 thru 20, Twp. 45 South, Rge. 43 East, according to the plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 7, at Page 20, of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida - 19 - MINUTES - pLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Description: Request for approval of an amended site plan to allow for a 9,240 square foot expansion in retail floor space, including the addition of a junior department store and a change in pa~king lot layout and design Mr. Ryder asked if there was a new name for the project. Mr. Golden informed him that the Fire Department has accepted Oakwood Square. He said the changes requested included elimination of the Yard King store and the nursery, which would have been in the northeast corner. This will be replaced by a junior department store and a restaurant, which is a new configuration- It will not result in the removal of any additional Oak trees. However, one Sabal Palm will have to be relocated as a result of the change. Also proposed is a change in the parking lot layout and design. Mr. Golden said that was mainly in front of the supermarket in the southeast corner. Previously, the parking spaces were angled in direct line with the front of the store. Now they are somewhat at an angle to the front of the store, which results in greater conformity with the surround- ing parking area and is safer and more efficient. The TRB recommended approval, subject to staff comments. Edward Duggan, Oakwood Square ASSociates, Ltd., 6350 North Andrews Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309, read and understood all of the staff comments and accepted them. Mr. Ryder moved to approve the amended site plan, subject to staff comments. Before the motion was seconded, Mr. De Long wished to comment that there was an extensive Horticulturist's report. He asked Mr. Duggan if he had reviewed this report. Mr. Duggan had reviewed it and had no objection to the report. Mr. Pagliarulo seconded the motion, and the motion carr'[ed 7-0. Chairman Trauger asked when the completion date of this would be. Mr. Duggan replied, "May, 1987." He informed Mr. Ryder the whole area is 188,000 square feet. - 20 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 e Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: The Landings (Clipper Cove) James D. Driskell The Landings Apartments Limited Congress Avenue at S. W. Congress Boulevard, northwest corner See "Addendum E" attached to the original copy of these minutes Request for approval of entrance signage Mr. Golden referred the Members to the overlay and said the TRB recommended approval, subject to staff comments. Mr. Ryder said it will be erected on the mound at the corner, and he was concerned about visibility. Although it sets back from Congress Avenue, Congress Avenue will be widened on that side. There was discussion. James D. Driskell, Agent, 5405 Cypress Center Drive, Suite 320, Tampa, Florida 33609, said there is a berm that was originally constructed there as part of their overall berm on the front of the property. There is a low planter which comes up to create the planting area and a place for the plant material. Then there is a four foot wall behind that, which is the sign body itself, so there would be a four foot sign body with a small planter below where they will plant bushes to soften that. With reference to the concern about visibility, Mr. Driskell said this sets back substantially from Congress as it exists today and from the widened Congress. The sides are angled to provide adequate visibility for traffic ingress and egress onto Congress. Mr. Annunziato asked how high above average grade the top of the second sign is. Mr. Ryder added, "the grade of Congress Avenue, not Congress Boulevard." Congress Avenue was the elevation they worked from and when Congress Avenue is widened, Mr. Driskell believed the height of the second sign will be approximately six feet overall above the improved grade of Congress Avenue, when it is widened. Mr. Pagliarulo asked if he meant to the top of the sign. Mr. Driskell answered, "Yes." Mr. Pagliarulo noticed the second sign was shown to be four feet above the top of the lower masonry wall. Mr. Driskell agreed. Mr. Pagliarulo asked if he meant the masonry wall is only two feet above it at the center. Mr. Driskell answered, "Yes", and explained it is really to retain ero- sion from coming down. - 21- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Mrs. Huckle observed Lakes of Tara has their sign."sort of like in a little boulevard divided roadway," and questioned how this sign would parallel it. It was Mr. Driskell's understanding that the Lakes of Tara sign sits out about 15 feet further than where their sign will be. Lakes of Tara's sign is almost out to the curb. Mr. Pagliarulo moved to approve the entrance signage, subject to staff comments. Mr. De Long seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. 5. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Meadows 300 Tract G Club Meadows Phase III Jeff H. Iravani, P.E. The Wilshire Corporation West side of Congress Avenue, south of Hypoluxo Road Meadows 300 - Plat No. 3 - Tract "G", Sec. 7, Twp. 45 S., Rge. 43 E., Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida Request for approval of an amended site plan to provide for the addition of recreational amenities (pool, cabana, tennis courts) and a mainten- ance building Mr. Golden reminded the Members that the site plan was originally approved at the August meeting. One of the com- ments made by the Planning Department at that time was that future recreational amenities would require site plan approval. The proposed modification included the details on the recreational amenities, as well as a maintenance building. Tract G is located in the northwestern portion of The Meadows 300 PUD. It is immediately south of the Lakes of Hypoluxo PUD and west of Tract H. The maintenance building is located in the northwest corner of the site. The pool and cabana are located in the middle, and the two tennis courts are at the extreme east end. The TRB recommended approval, subject to staff comments. Mr. Edward Schwab, Wilshire Corporation, 1000 Southern Boul!evard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33405, said they reviewed the staff comments and were in total agreement. - 22- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Mrs. Huckle moved to approve the amended site plan, subject to staff comments. Mr. Pagliarulo seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Legal Description: Description: Meadows 300 Tract H - Club Meadows Phase II Edward Schwab The Wilshire Corporation West side of Congress Avenue, south of Hypoluxo Road Tract H of Meadows 300 PUD, Plat 92, Sec. 7, Twp. 45 S., Rge. 43 E. Request for approval of building signage Mr. Golden said this would be on the east side of apartment building 97, which would be the southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and Meadows Way. The sign is to be 14'6" long by 18" high and is to read "Club Meadows". The TRB recommended approval. There were no staff comments. Mr. Golden explained to Mrs. Huckle and Chairman Trauger that the overlay showed a previous plan which was amended for the request at hand, which was only for the Club Meadows sign on the end of apartment building 97. Everything else was previously approved. Mrs. Huckle questioned why they wanted another sign when there is a big one there now. She also wondered why it said "Project Entry", and you can- not get in that way. Mr. Edward Schwab, Wilshire Corporation, 1000 Southern Boule- vard~ West Palm Beach, Florida 33405, informed the Members that the overlay was presented several years ago. "Project Entry" was the terminology for that specific type of sign for the entry of that PUD. They are now asking for this signage to be installed on building ~7 for better visibility because of Phase III, which is Tract G, that they have site plan approval for. This will be contiguous with that Phase III. Mrs. Huckle asked if they were going to also leave the original sign indicated as "Project Entry" there, in the middle, facing Hypoluxo Road. Mr. Schwab replied that sign is of CBS construction and looks very similar to the oval shaped "Club Meadows" sign in the middle of the overlay. It is heavily landscaped and is a permanent structure, as well as the sign they are now requesting. They are asking for - 23- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 this sign for better visibility because they are adding 170 units to the total project. Mrs. Huckle could see why they would want to have the new sign, but the two signs are not that far apart, and it seemed like a lot of signage. Mr. Schwab advised that the existing sign is approximately 4½ feet above ground level for the same amount of distance above the sidewalk. It runs parallel to the canal. They need something that is more visible behind the Publix shopping center because it is congested at that point. One thing that was not on the overlay that Mr. Schwab said should have been was that where the signage is proposed on that building, it is landscaped with Sabal Palms, Pampas grass, and other low lying hedges, so it is no~t a stark side of a building with lettering on it. He elaborated. Mrs. Huckle moved to approve the request for building signage, seconded by Mr. Ryder. Motion carried 7-0. OTHER Discussion of Proposed Countywide Planning Council Referendum Ballot and Proposed Ordinance Chairman Trauger had requested this because, as citizens, they will have to. vote on it later on. Mrs. Huckle was pleased to realize that if this passes, at the end of a five year term, it can be readdressed. Mr. De Long asked if she ever tried to recall a bureaucracy five years after it is in motion. He thought it gave up too much home rule and sovereignty. It creates another level ~of bureaucracy that they do not need, is not cost effective, and there are enough costs now in the permitting stage. Mr. De Long thought there would be an additional level of that and an additional stratum of government bureaucracy. Mr. De Long also commented that whoever controls the Regional Planning Council will probably be the prime autocrat of the County, wielding enough power to make it awesome. It seemed to Chairman Trauger that it left the cities fairly autonomous as far as municipalities go, but if you get into a dispute with a project on your border, next to the County, and have high zoning contiguous to low zoning, this Board would step in to make the ruling. Mr. De Long could see - 24- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 where it would benefit those towns that do not have the voluminous dollars spent creating Planning Departments with efficient, intelligent Planners, but did not see where it would be any big benefit for Boynton Beach. In all the years Mr. Ryder has been on the Board, he did not think they had any serious problems with being able to live the way the County has zoned the areas adjacent to the City's limits. What he was concerned about was that it will eventually have to assume the proportions of a major agency. They have to collect all of the Comprehensive Land Use plans, go through them, etc. Mr. Ryder realized the concern Mr. Annunziato had as to what the effect might be on the City's utility service requirements. Mr. Ryder asked if Mr. Annunziato, during his experience with the City, saw where the City had any major problems with regard to conflicts. Mr. Annunziato replied that the City has always had a very close relationship with the County in utilities as that translates into land use. The biggest problem the City has had has been in getting the word when things are happening in our area. Sometimes actions are taken where the City is not advised. Where the City is involved, it is effective. Mr. Annunziato thought the County Staff would rather see the cities take the lead in the areas in close proximity to the cities. ~e has seen it with the billboard ordinances and the land use recommendations° The County has bigger problems to worry about than 100 acres which are in a pocket on High Ridge Road or South Federal Highway. In the future, Mr. Annunziato thought they could count on those areas going into some city. Mr. Annunziato thought there was a hidden agenda that was not obvious from the Ordinance. The Land Use map is a composite of all of the other elements in the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the determination to have certain areas at certain densities or commercial uses in other locations is a factor of roadways, ability to serve, availability of schools, facilities to pick up trash and dumping facilities. All of that information comes together to create a land use element which translates into people and commercial industrial structures that the City can serve. Mr. Annunziato thought what had to happen was that even though the Planning Council will be responsible for creating the Land Use Element, there will be a lot of planning going - 25- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 on. He explained and said you do not see that in this Ordinance. As far as the City proper was concerned, Mr. Annunziato said no big decisions were made, except for Tradewinds. He pointed out that they are very small issues. There are annexations where they know what the land uses are and know they can serve. The County is where the action is going to be in the future and where the Planning Council will be most effective. There is a way to impact on County systems so, from a City point of view, it becomes beneficial. Mr. Ryder asked if he did not feel it would be an additional burden on the City in any way. Mr. Annunziato could not see that it would be a substantial burden and could not see how anything the Planning Council could do could substantially affect Boynton Beach at this time because all of the land use decisions are made. The zoning, land use, and utilities are in place, and the roadways are programmed. There is not much that is not known. Mr. De Long added, "except how far perhaps you are going to annex in the future and what situations may change." He thought there were a lot of unknowns. His point was why should they create a super agency when they have in place all kinds of technicians. Mr. De Long asked, "Why duplica- tion? Why another strata of red tape?" He reiterated prior statements and stated that he knows a lot of people are at odds for that very reason. City Manager Cheney pointed out that the Planning Council is prevented from being a permitting agency. It is a Planning Council Agency. Mr. De Long asked if City Manager Cheney was telling him that if this super agenCy is created, there would be no adjunct or ancillary bureaucracies that might impinge on it and that would control additional permitting. City Manager Cheney repeated his first statement and added that the Planning Council is not a review agency. It is an agency to coordinate 38 comprehensive plans and see if it is possible. City Manager Cheney referred to an argument which was that you cannot plan Palm Beach County wit~ 38 different organi- zations doing it and have something that makes sense. It will be a bureaucracy, and he explained. There will be a planning staff that will take the plans, see if they fit together, and serve the Planning Council. City Manager Cheney said it is mainly to bring together 38 different - 26 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 decision bodies who are making decisions as to how this County is going to develop. The strongest point Mr. Annunziato made was that it gives the municipalities a chance to say what happens. It seemed to City Manager Cheney that it would give the whole east coast of the City some opportunity to say what happens west of the City, which will have an impact on the City. He referred to Boca Raton and Greenacres. Mrs. Huckle stated that Jon Shudlick, Mayor of Ocean Ridge, came out very vigorously against this. One of his arguments was that if this were to pass, the bridge situation between Boynton Beach and Ocean Ridge might have to be talked up to the County to be satisfied. City Manager Cheney thought that issue would be answered by the Supreme Court very soon. Mrs. Huckle was talking about something on that order and wondered if there would ever be a referee type of capacity for this body. City Manager Cheney answered that the body will ultimately adopt a Countywide coordinated Land Use Plan that will coordinate 38 Land Use Plans. .At the same time, there is wording in there that is in direct response to Mayor Shudlick, that says the body cannot increase the densities of a community that is established. Mrs. Huckle pointed out that a lot of border line problems can come between. City Manager Cheney said 38 conflicting situations are coming into being now, and there is no way of settling them. There was discussion. City Manager Cheney thought the issue was whether they thought the County could go on with 38 Comprehensive Plans without any way of bringing about a compromise. It is now becoming a conflict of interests. First off, Mr. Ryder said the concept looks good but he wondered specifically how~ the City could benefit. City Manager Cheney said the city cares about what will happen west of Boynton Beach and its impact. Therefore, they should have some voice in it. Someday, City Manager Cheney said the City will have an improvement to Boynton Beach Boulevard, and development is going on out there without any improvement to Boynton Beach Boulevard. The only safeguard Mr. Ryder noted was that they cannot increase the density. Getting back to the conflict resolution issue, Mr. Annunziato thought they would find with the way the planning statutes are structured, that sooner or later there is going - 27- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 to.be a conflict resolution body. The Regional Planning Council is already beginning to position itself as a conflict resolution body, and he expounded. Mr. De Long pointed out that they still have the American Jurisprudence system and relief in the Courts. City Manager Cheney argued that they will not get relief. They will get the problems solved at Treasure Coast, where the City has no say, or by the State, where the City has totally no say. They are going to be coordinated somewhere. City Manager Cheney said they better coordinate them here in Palm Beach County with our own people. It seemed to him they had the obligation to be concerned with what happens Countywide. The County planning process is giving up more than the 37 municipalities. Mrs. Huckle noticed three members are required to be resi- dents from each of the three largest cities. Everything she read so far has put Delray Beach instead of Boynton Beach in line for one of those seats. Mr. Annunziato said Delray Beach cannot grow populationwise as quickly as Boynton Beach. City Manager Cheney said that does not mean Boynton Beach does not get a seat. There was more discussion. Mrs. Huckle asked if it was in fine print as to how the selections will be made from each individual municipality or if it would be after the referendum goes through. She wondered if there was a criteria by which they select people. In most instances, Vice Mayor Zimmerman thought they would be elected officials. Mrs. Huckle iasked if that was already cast in dye. Vice Mayor Zimmerman advised that the Municipal League will appoint the nine members. Three will have to be from the three largest cities, and the remaining six will be from different districts. The Municipal League is made up of a Board of Directors that are appointed by various City Councils throughout the County. The Councils will probably make recommendations to the entire membership of the Munici- pal League. Vice Mayor zimmerman guessed a vote at the general membership meeting, which has representation from every city, will make the final decision on who the people will be. City Manager Cheney said it would be the same procedure that. is used for the four municipal representatives~on the Solid Waste AUthority or the municipal representatives on the Treasure Coast. - 28- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 14, 1986 Vice Mayor Zimmerman informed the Board that Boynton Beach will get two shots at naming these people: (1) through the Board of Directors (Vice Mayor Zimmerman is the representa- tive for Boynton Beach). They have had three or four meet- ings within the last month. (2) Practically every month they have a membership meeting where a representative from the Council and, in some instances, City Managers are repre- sented, if Council Members are too occupied. The City is not left out at all in appointing the nine members. Mrs. Huckle again asked how they get down to the "nitty gritty" of appointing the people. Vice Mayor Zimmerman was sure their qualifications are considered but said it would have to be someone who has the time to do it. If a person on the City Council is employed full-time, especially by a company that does not let them off very often, that indivi- dual will not accept the job because it is time consuming. The meetings very likely will be held in the day time. Someone will have to be appointed that is willing to put the time in without pay. Chairman Trauger thanked Mr. Annunziato for the presentation. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. De Long moved, seconded by Mr. Wandelt to adjourn, and the meeting properly adjourned at 9:45 p. M. - 29- IO,FOOT'IITILITY EA.~MENT TO I~, AEANiX~IF.D I~.)RrTiON OF BOYNTON LAKES - PLAT NO. LEGAL DESCRiPTiON A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION $, TO~I/NSHIi' ~5 SOUTH, RANGE ~3 EAST, PALM BEACH;COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID PARCEL BEING A PORTION OP BOYNTOI~ LAKES - PLAT NO. :~ (P.U.D.) AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 52, PAGES I'O~ TilRU log OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIrJA~ SAUl PARCEL BEING MORE pARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLO~/S~ ~ TitE NORTHERLY ILO.O0 FEET OF LOTS :~ THRU 8~ BLOCK 3, THE NORTHERLY I0.00 F~TOF TRACT "P", TflE NORTH~/ESTERLY I0.00 FEET OF LOT.S I THRU 8, BLOCK-~, TftE NORTI4~I/ESTERLY lCLO0 FEET OF TRACT "Q", THE SOUTH- WESTERLY IO. O0 FEET OF LOTS 2 THRU ~ BLOCK ~, THE NORTHWESTERLY I0.00 FEET' OF LOTS ~ TftRtl 8, BLOCK ~ THE NORTHWESTERLY 10.00 FEET OF TRA~ #.1#, TIlE NORTtJWESTERLY IO.00 FEET OF LOTS ~ THRLI 8, BLOCK 6, THE NORTHWESTERLY I0.00 FEET OF TRACT "!", ALL OF THE ABOVE BEING SHOWN AS-AN EXISTING I0.00 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT EK3:YNTON LAKES - PLAT NO. ~ (P,U.D.) AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK ~2, PAGES I:O5~ THRU I05 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORDA.: --- .. PROPOSED 6 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT PORTION OF BOYNTON LAKES - PLAT NO. ~ (P.U.D.) LEGAL DESCRIPTIO~ A PARCEL'OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP q5 sOUTH, RANGE q3 EAST, PALM BEACH COtJNTY~ FLORIDA, SAID PARCEL BEING A PORTION OF BOYNTON iAKES - PLAT NO..5 (P.U.D.) AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK .52, PAGES !0~ THRU 10.8 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID PARCEL BEING MORE PARTICULA.RLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS~ THE NOR-THERLY 6.00 FEET OF LOTS .5 THRU ~ BLOCK 3, THE NORTHERLy 6.00 FE~TOF TRACT "P" THE NORTHWESTERLY 6.00 FF-ET OF LOTS I THRU 8, BLOCK % THE NORTHWESTERLY 6.00 FEET OF' TRACT ,Q-, THE SOUTH- WESTERLY 6.00 FEET OF TRACT "A", THE SOUTHWESTERLY 6.00 FEET OF LOTS 2 THRU O,. BLOCK .5, THI~ NORTHWESTERLY 6.00 FEET OF LOTS t~ THRU 8, BLOCK :5, '[HE NORTHWESTERLY 6.00 FEET OF. TRACT "3", THE NORTH- WESTERLY 6..00 FEET OF LOTS # THRU 8, BLOCK 6, THE NORTHWESTERLY 6.00 FEET OF TRACT "1", ALL OF THE ABOVE BEING WITH THE SUBDIVISION BOYNTON LAKE5 - PLAT NO. 5 (P.U.D.) AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK ~2, PAGES 10'5 THRU 10& OF THE P[JBLIC RECORDS OF PAE'M BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA. ADDENDUM A .... Legal Descrlpti~: The Easterly 200 feet, as measured at right angles to the West right of~way line of Seacrest BouleVard, of the following described parcel of land in Section 33, Township 45 South, Range ~3 East, Palm Beach' County, Florida, to-wit: Beginning at the intersection of the Westerly right of way line of Seacrest Boulevard ~with the North line of Tract 14 of the subdivision of Section 33, as reCordea in Plat Book 1, page 4, Public Records of Palm BeaCh .County, Florida; thence South~-esterlyw alon. g said right of way line, a distance 'of 272.3'~. feet; thence Northwesterly, at right angles to the prec~g course, a-distance of 419.69 feet; thence Easterly, alonq.~e North~line of Tract 16, a distance of 500.29 feet to th~oin~-of ~Beginning. LESS AND NOT INCLUDING,' the North -20 f~of the.parcel herein described ' ~:~: ... AND TOGETHE~' WITH: ' Lots :~'~ 9,-~ne Cr~st Ridge, Boynton Beach, ~alm Beach Countg~.-~lorida,' .according to the plat thereof recorded Plat .~ 24 atrpage 153 of the Public Records of Palm Beach' Count~ ~lorida. ADDENDUM B MEMORANDUM 24 September 1986 TO: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board FROM: Carmen S. Anhunziato Planning Director Application for Annexation, Future Land Use~ Element Amendment and Rezoning - PedroM. Diaz INTRODUCTION: ' Pedro M. Diaz, property owner, is proposing to annex~into Boynton Beach, a 1.i8 acre tract of land located on~-~e north side of West Boynton Beach Boulevard (State Road804), approximately 300 feet east of Knuth Dairy Road (se, Exhibit A). The property in question, which lies adjacent Greentree Plaza II, is currently zoned CN (Neighbo~ho~d Commercial) and it is undeveloped except for a bill--Do--rd whiCh encumbers the southeast corner of the tract. Paralleling this request for annexation is a-request amend the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan to show .annexed land a~ Local Retail Commercial, and to rezone this property to' C-3 (Community Commercial). 'in connection with this request for annexation,_the.appiicant is proposing to construct an 11,040 square foot mixed-use commercial building (see Exhibit B). PROCEDURE: These applications for annexation, amendment~.~o the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and-rezoni~g are being processed consis~.ent with State statutes, andiron Beach Codes, Ordinances and Resolutions as fottows: 1. F.S. 163.3161: Act. F.S. 166.041: Resolutions. Local Government ComprehensivePl~'~ning Procedures for Adoption of Ordinances and Se F.S. 171.011: Municipa~ Annexation and Contraction Act. Boynton Beach Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Section 3A5(e): Boundary and Zoning. Boynton Beach Ordinance $79-24. - e Boynton Beach Resolution ~76-X: Annexation. Procedures for These regulations have been listed for informational purposes. Paraphrasing, these regulations require review~ by the City Department Heads, newspaper advertisements, p'~blic hearings with the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council and Council adoptionof ordinances to annex, amend the Future Land Use Element and'rezone. Recently, the State Legislature adopted legislation ~mending Chapter 163 F.S. which became effective on July 1, 1986. Included in the new legislation, commonly referred to as the "Glitch Bill", Section 163.3184, is a provision exe_n~ng certain small scale development activities from limits on the frequency of local plan amendments as follows: Any local government comprehensive plan amendm, e~-ts. directly related to proposed small scale devel~pm~t activities may be approved without regard to statutory limits on the frequency of consideration of ~men/~ments to the local comprehensive plan under the following conditions: The proposed amendment is a residential !arid use of 5 acres or less and a density of 5 units-per'acre or less or involves other land use categories, singularly or in combination with residential'use of 3 acres or.~less and:. a. The cumulative effect of the above condition ~shall not .exceed 30 acres annuaIly; and b. The proposed amendment does not involv, e the same property more than once a year; c. The proposed amendment does not involve the same owner's property within 200 feet of property granted a change within .a period of 12 months. 2. The local government shall provide a Semiannual report to the 'state land planning agency by July 1 and by Decembez 31 of each calendar year summarizing the type and frequency of use of the exemptions and the action taken on each by the ~-~ local government; and 3. A local government 'is not required to comply with the requirements of s.163.3184(15)(c) for plan amendments pursuant to this paragraph if the local government substantially complies with the provisions in s.163.31,84(15)(c) in a legal advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation within the local government's jurisdiction. Therefore, within the context of the new legislation, the Diaz request is exempt from the requirements for state review as per item no. 1 above. CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING: As previously discussed, this property is undeveloped and zoned CN (Neighborhhood Commercial). The land use and zoning in the surrounding area varies and is presentedfor your information in the table which follows: JURISDICTION. PatmBeach County ZONING DIRECTION Northwest North Palm Beach County RT/SE LAND USE Single- f,~miiy home Commerci=i microwave transmission and relay towe~on large underdeveloped parcel Northeast Palm Beach, County AR East Palm Beach County CN South/ Boynton Beach PUD w/ Southeast LUI=4 Southwest Boynton Beach C-1 West Boynton Beach C-3 Vacant agricultural/ residential tract vacant neighborhood~ commercial tract st~n~haven Planned Unit DeVelopment ( s ingle- family h6mes) ~laza West Office Building Greentree Plaza II retail/office building -FUTURE LAND USE AND REzONING As reported in the analysis of the Post Office annexation,. (November 1984) Palm Beach County revisited the issue of future land use in the area south of the Boynton Beach Mall. What resulted was an action on the part of the Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners to allocate future potential for commercial uses.for the property located east of Knuth Road, north of West Boynton Beach Boulevard, west of Congress Avenue and south of the Old Boynton Road. all likelihood, these ~ands will develop in the City asthey are bordered on the north, east and south by current corporate limits. This leaves the important decisio~as to use to the Planning and~Zuning In reaching these decisions, the Board and the County need to be cognizant-of factors including, but not limite, d to,~the proposat-~ construct an east/west road Avenue Boynton Road, the existence forms ~ potential buffer to changes in land uses 124, ~owever, has recently been culverted in places), existenc~mf Knuith Roadfunctioning as a major cotl.ectorand in the broader sense as an access to BeaCh Mall and development of density land use~west of Knuth Road (see C). From a 'planning point o~ view, given the consideration that the decision of commercial versus non-commercial la~d_use has to a great degree b~en made, the primary concer~become adequacy of infrastructure, knowied~e .of future private sector development plan~, adequate buffering and arrangement of future land uses, intensity of land use and the ~act of existing land ~ses on future proposals. As related~tothis area in general, the intensity of commercial land us~ should diminish westward of Mall access Road B and ncmth of LWDD #24, with no commercial land uses permitted west of KnUth Road other than those which exist along .BoyntonrBeach BOulevard. The reasons for this are many and include the impact of the Boynton Beach Mall, limitations on fu~re markets, availability 9f infrastructure, particular!yroads and the need to properly buffer existing and. proposed residential areas west Of'Knuth .Road. Specifically, the lands adjacent to both sides of Mall access Road B to Congress Avenue and the lands between ~Boynton Beach Boulevard and LWDD #24 should reflect a local retail !and use category and a C-3 Community Commercial zoning '. classification. These classifications recognize the impact of ~he Mall with its attendant traffic impa~t and the existing C-3 zoned lands in the vicinity, including recently annexed Sabra Enterprises, Inc. tract (Greentree Plaza II). However, the remainder of the lands east of. Knuth Road and north of LWDD #24 should reflect an office and professional land use category and be zoned C-l, or be submitted as a Planned Commercial Development (PCD) with office uses predominating. A minimum land area of 3 acres is required for zoning to PCD. In addition to the planning considerations, the City Cou~.cil has, in the recent past, expressed their desire to seethe corridor of land lying between the LWDD L-24 canal and~st Boynton Beach Boulevard east of Knuth Dairy Road developed for local retail uses as was evidenced with the annexation of the Sabra Enterprises, Inc. tract (Greentree Plaza ~). Therefore, within the context of the above, the Diaz requests are both reasonable and practical. COMPREHENSIVEPLAN POLICIES - There are three policies in the ComprehensiVe Plan w~ich address annexations as follows: ~-~.~ 1. "Annex only property which is reasonably contigu~as to present municipal boundaries;" 2o "Annex property only after the preparation of a study evaluating the fiscal benefits of annexation versus the cost of providing service;" and 7-'- 3. "Annex only properties which are of sufficient size to provide efficient service and on which urban development is anticipated." In order to determine the consistency of the Diaz re--st with the Comprehensive Plan PolicieS, each of'the three policies will be addressed individually. Policy 1 - "Annex only'-property which is reasonably contiguous to the present municipal boundarie~s~" The Diaz property is ~ontiguous to current muniCipal limits along its entire southern and western propertY_lines (478 feet or 50%) of the total property boundary..~In ~ad~on, this property lies in the path of urban development. Policy 2 - Annex property.only after the preparation of a study evaluating the fiscal benefits of annexation ve=sus the cost of providing services." In response to policy tWo, you will find accompanying this memorandum Exhibit E which attempts to evaluate the cost to the City of annexing this p~rcel and the dollars returned to the City in taxes. Policy 3 - "Annex only'properties which are of sufficient size to provide efficient service and on which urban development is anticipated." As previously reported, the Diaz tract is 1.18 acres in size and it is located in an area already developed in urb ~an land uses. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department recommends that the applications submitted by Pedro M. Diaz, property owner, for annexation, future land use element amendment and rezoning be app~oved subject to the staff comments which accompany this Memorandum as Exhibit ~E. This recommendation is based in part on the following: 1. The parcel iscontiguous to the Corporate limits; 2. The parcel lies within a County pocket and it isin the path of urban development; 3. The parcel is located within the City's municipal service area; The intensity of land use desired is appropriat~ ~oz the location; The request is consistent with the Comprehensive ~!an policies for annexation; 6. The land use category r~equested must be conside~as a part of an overall..strategy for annexation and it is appropriate; 7. The zoning is consistent with the proposed, use oft he sit,e; ' 8. The request will n6t impair the value or futur~e~of lands in the surrounding area; and, The cost to serve versus the benefits received indicate a positive return for the City. CARMEN S. ANNUHZIATO /bk~" Planning".~i D?partment: BOYNTON BEACH STAFF COMMENTS Billboard located on southeastern portion of property to be removed withi~ sixty (60) days of annexation. That part of Section 33, Township 45~South, Range 43 East, Palm Beach County, Florida, described as follows: Begin a.t the northwest corner of Lot 5, Pine Crest Ridge, according to the plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 24 at Page 153 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida; thence south (assumed.}, along the.west line of said Lot 5, 63.56 feet to a point of curvature of a curve concave easterly with a radius of 25.00 feet a~ a central angle of 56°04,00-; thence southerly, along the arc of said curve,-24.46 feet; thence S.56°04,00-E., along the southwesterly line of Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9 of said plat of Pine Crest Ridge, 432.65 feet to a point of.curvature of a curve con- cave-northerly with a radius of 25.00 feet and a central angle of 90°00'00"; thence easterly along the-arc .of said curve, 39.27 feet to the ~esterly right of way line of Seacrest Boulevard; thence S133°56'~00"W., along said westerly right of way line, 100.00 feet toa-poiat on a curve concave westerly with a radius of 25.00 feet, a cent~-al angle of 90"00'00,,, and chord bearing N.11"04,00-W.; thence n~rtherly, along the arc of said curve, 39.27 feet; thence N-56~04'00"W.,-along the northeasterly line of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of sai~plat of-Pine Crest Ridge, 412.32 feet to the west line of said Lot~ 4; thence south, along said-west line, 12487 feet; thence N.89°03~0"W., and parallel with the north line of Lot 5 of said plat-of Pine Crest Ridge, 50.01 feet to a line 50.00 feet west of and pa~el with the west line of said Lots 4 and 5; thence north, along said parallel line, 150.00 feet to the intersection with the westerl_v extension of the north line of said Lot 5, thence S89"03'~0~'~E., along said westerly extension, 50.01 feet to the said' point o~f beginning. (Being S.W. 26th Avenue and a portion of SoW. 2nd Street). Containinq 30,502 square feet, more or less. ADDENDUM C MEMORANDUM 24 September 1986 TO: FROM: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director Bethesda Memorial Hospital/O. Alan Jared II!, et. al., Rezoning Request SUMMARY: Universal Medical Buildings, IncoLrporated, ~ent for O. Alan Jared III, et. al., property owners, and Bethesda Memorial Hospital, applicant, is requestinq 't2~at a 1.40 acre parcel be rezoned from PU (Public Usage) Lo C-1 (Office/Professional). The Future Land Use Plan desig~ation for this parcel is to remain unchanged (Office Commercial). The property has a 349 foot frontage on South Seacrest Boulevard and a 170 foot frontage on SW 26th Avenue attached location map in Exhibit A). Currently, th~ subject parcel is occupied by a one-story medical office b~ng and the parking lot for. this building. The propos~e of this property, if rezoned, would be to raize the one-story structure and to combine this parcel with property occupied by the .apar~ent complex to the west, for the purpose of redeveloping both parcels for'a new ~o-story mediCal office complex to be operated in affiliation with Bethesda Memorial Hospital (see preliminary site p!~ in ~hibit B). Also proposed is the abando~ent~ of SW 2~ Avenue and a portion of SW 2nd Street to allow~ for integration of the prgposed medical office c~mplex ~,~ the existing hospital site. SURRO~DING L~D USE ~D ZONING (SEE ATTACHED LOCA~ ~P IN ~HIBIT A): ~utting the subject parcel ~to the e~ is an 80 foot wide right-of-way for Seacrest Boulevard. Further to the east, across Seacrest Boulevard,~ are two medical office building~ zoned C-l, Office/Professional. Abutting the subject parcel to the south i~ a fifty-f~ot wide right-of-way for SW 26th Avenue. Further to the south, across SW 26th Avenue, is the main parking lot for the Bethesda Memorial Hospital. The main hospital site is zoned PU (Public Usage). Abutting the subject parcel to the west is an apartment complex zoned C-1 which consists of two buildings which are two stories in height. This parcel, under the s~e propert~ ownership, is to be co~ined with the subject parcel and is to be redeveloped as a part of the proposed medical office complex. Also abutting the s~ject 'parcel to the west (north of the apartment complex), is patio home zoned C-1 which is in fair condition. Abutting the subject parcel to the north is a 20-foot wide private driveway which provides access to Seacrest Boulevard for the patio home to the west. Further to the north, across private driveway, are three single-family homes in the Westchester Heights subdivision zoned R-1AA, Single-Family Residential. These homes range in condition from fair to good. Also to the north, at the southwest corner of Seacrest Boulevard and SE 25th Avenue, is a two-story office building zoned C-1 which fronts on Seacrest Boulevard. PRESENT ~ZONING AND REZONING: The present PU zoning would allow for the development of the same type of facilitJ~as that proposed Under the C-1 (Office/Professional) zoning-. The key difference between the two zoning categories with regard to the proposed medical office complex is th_a~the PU zoning category would limit the ~se of the proposed facitity to non-profit uses, while the C-1 zoning category for-profit enterprises, such as that proposed by the applicant. It should also be noted that the proposed.~zoning category (C-l) is generally more stringent with r, ega~dto setbacks, minimum lot area, lot coverage and building height than the present Public Usage zoning category. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -.FUTURE LAND USE MAP: The Future Land Use Plan shows this property to be under the "Office Commercial" category. Therefore, an amendment to ~e.Future Land Use Plan would not be necessary. It should alpo, be noted that the proposed'Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report pr~poses to change the land use designation on this parcel t~'"_~%~bli¢ and Private I~stitutional Governmental," in order to correspond to the current Public Usage zoning and la~Iuse. However, if the request to rezone to C-1 is approved~ then this proposed change in land use would no longer be necessary. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - TEXT: The following Comprhensive Plan pOlicies are relevant to this rezoning request: "Provide a suitable living environment inali neighborhoods." (p. 6) o "Preserve the present stock of sound~dwellings and neighborhoods." (p. 6) "Provide a rang~e of land use types to accommodate a full range of services and activities." (p. 7) "Eliminate existing and potential land use conflicts." (p. 7) "Encourage the development of complimentary land uses." (p. 7) "Encourage the development of commercial land uses where accessibility is greatest and where impacts to residential. uses are minimized." (p. 7) ISSUES/DISCUSSION: 1. Whether development of this property for office commercial uses will have an adverse impact on surrounding residential properties. 2. Whether commercial zoning of this property would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies for the location of commercial uses. L~ DISCUSSION IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE ISSUES: Whether development of this property for office commercial uses will have an adverse impact on surrounding residential properties. It is not anticipated that development of this property for office/professional uses will have an adverse impact on surrounding residential properties. The apartment complex and patio home which abut the subject pa~cal to the west are currently zoned C-1 in anticipation of future redevelopment of these t~o parcels ~for office commercial land uses, such as that proposed by the applicant for the property occupied by the apar~ent complex. Tn regard to the three single-f~amily homes inthe Westchester Heights subdivision which abut~e subject parcel to the north, the property._to be rezoned is currently devel6ped for a medical office building under the current PU zoning category. The-_propos~duse of this property, if rezoned, will'essentially z~main the same and will not result in a further~protru~on of commercial zoning into the residential enclave tot he north (Westchester'Heights). ~_ In regard to buffering, the C-1 zoning, regulations would require a 30 foot building setback adjacent'to these three residential properties and either a six-foot high concrete block wall or a ~dense vegetative buffer of at least two feet in height at the time of planting. Cur.rentty, the subject parcel is screened from these three residential lots by a dense vegetative buffer along the majority of the common property boundary. The required screening would have to be provided in addition to the existing vegetative buffer. In addition, any proposed parking lot or exterior lighting along this property line should be directed away,' from the abutting residential properties, including the e commercially-zoned patio home. Whether commercial zoning of this property would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies for the location of commercial uses. Commercial zoning of the subject parcel would be consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies for the location of commercial uses. The proposed rezoning would represent an extension of the existing C-1 ~zoning district which abuts the property to the north~andwest. The proposed rezoning would also be in conformance with the policy of rezoning the parcels which front .along this section of Seacrest Boulevard to a C-1 zoning classification with an Office Commercial land us~- designation. The current lahd use designation~f~u~the property in question is in fact Office Commerci~. Therefore, the proposed C-1 zoning would corre_~ond to the present land use. The proposed zoning woUi~=_!so be in conformanCe with the Comprehensive Plan po!icy~which encourages the development of complimentary laDd_uses. CONCLUSIONS/RECOMMENDATION: Rezoning of the subject.~cel to C-1 (Office/prOfessional) would not create a conf~_~ct with surrounding land uses and would be consistent with7 Comprehensive Plan policies for the location of Office Commercial land uses. Rezoning to C-1 would atso~ ~-~ consistent with the ~resent and future use of this property and is more restrictive,in certain r~egards than-~ current PU zoning. Therefore, it is the Planning Departmen=';s recommendatio~ that the application for rezon±ng to C-I, Office/Professional, be approved subject to.the condition that any proposed exterior lighting along the north.lmrDperty line be directed away,from the abutting residentia!~. /bks CARMEN S. ANN~TO STAFF COMMENTS MEADOWS 300 TRACT 'D (VISCAYA) MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION Bui~q Department: Planning Department: See attached memo° Private recreation area requires. site plan approval. ! 'MEMORANDUM Carmen Annunziat0 Planning Director Don jaeger Chief Plans Review Inspector DATE' September 29, i986 Master Plan Modification: Vizcaya --~ ~ As a condition of approval, the following comments should be incorporated into the related documents: 1. In order to maintain consistency with the other plats at Meadows 300, we recommend that the building setbacks be as follows: front - 25', side - 7.5', rear - 15'. On the master plan, in text or in a small detailed drawing, delineate the minimum lot dimension~-and minimum building setback lines. Setback lines shall be constructed perpendicular from the property line, to the vertical building wall closest to the property line. 2. Future screen enclosures must comply with the sgandardci~y requirements of an 8 foot rear setback and screened por-chas with solid roofs must meet the building setback lines. The applicant's prompt compliance with the preceding comm-ent~-'wfTI insure a timely permitting process. Don Ja~r~ DJ:bh ME. MORANDUM - Carmen 'Annunziat°- Planning Director Jaeger f Plans Review Inspector October 8, 1986 Site Plan Approval: Boynton Center Plaza a condition of site plan approval, the following comments should incorporated into the related document's;*'' ' Building must be accurately located on site. City .Code requires a 5 foot sidewalk .along majo~-arteri~Ir°ads' This sidewalk should continue through the driveways and ramped for handicapped accessibility- 3. Doors in the rear of the structure open into the trafficl'~-ne' The Standard Building Code would allow for these-doors to open in. 4. Handicapped ramps and parking stalls are in differon~ !oc:a~ions on the site plan versus the paving and drainage plan- S. -Handicapped signs must be placed'in front of these parking stalls to denote their reserved status. -' 6. Curbing should be placed around ail landscaped a~'eas adjacent to ~parking stalls and parking qtatls shoul~ be double striped per code. In order to facilitate, the building permit review pro~ess, the following information should be provided at the time of submit-~al: 1. Department of Transportat~6n.. turn-out permit. . 2..~o sets of Community ~ppearance Board land'scape~ans'. 3. Two sets of working drawings for the constructionof~_, the bo_itding and parking area. ' -.~_~.~ 4. Soil tests. · 5. Two signed and sealed copies..of the State Energy Code... 6. Specifications should be provided for the Tr.ocal R0ofing System to show that it meets the 120 m.p.h, wind load requirement. The applicant's prompt compliance w~th the preceding comments will insure a timely permitting process. rayarc' Box 2944 Hartford. CT 0610~ ***C,a, LI. TOLL FREE:1.800-243:5250 REPLY ' MESSAGE Fold At'( ~ ) To Fit:Graym'¢ Window Envelope it EWl0P * ': ' "' ~ " ' FROM - a~-mnl=R ITEM i~ F269 ..... FLEASE REPLY TO ~ SIGNED MEMORANDUM October 7, 1986 TO: Mr. Jim Golden Planning Department FROM: Tom Clark City Engineer RE: Site Plans, Boynton Center Plaza Comments: '~ :'-- 1. Radius for roadway around' west side of prop.os~_~G building are too small; 2. The opening of the proposed rear doors Will ~- a traffic hazard. - 0 Se TAC/ck Parking markings to be double striped. Percolation data is required for drainage calculation. Designer should take advantage of the~parking, lot regulations. THe width could be r~educed .to 6A feet and the stall width could be reduced to' 9'feet. Planting areas _should show raised header curbs_ Parking lot lighting to be shown. Five foot sidewalk required in U.S. Turnout details should be clarified, ie;, Architect's site plan does not agree with P. & D.'i .plan. A 25 foot r~dius or Class'I Urban turnout is required. T~m } Clark MEMORBNOUM TO : Carmen Rnnunziato, Planning Director DRTE: Oc~o.ber ?, 1986 SUBJECT: TRB commen~s - Boyn~on Cen~er Plaza We can approve the subject submittal conditionally upon the {ot,i~_±z~j changes being made: 1) The sewer gravity line should be deepened or 10" pipe ~d be used throughout so as to allow maximum ex%ension o{ fha lin~- Z) R tapping ~ee end valve uill be needed to ex~end ~he ua~r main· The City uill no% turn valves and {irkings. 3) Miscellaneous details should be correcfed to .con{or~ -~ standard criteria. 4) The water.main mus~ be 8'/, not 6". our 5) Provide ~ire '~lou calculations. .~orm a loop may be required. Extension o{ ihe water ~in to F. icus ~rees are no~ an'acceptable species {or plan~ing withi~uater and sewer easemen%s,.or uithin ZO {ee~ o{ any improvements, due ~o ~heir elaborate root s~ructure. We uil] require ~ha~ ~ree species with minimal roo~ systems be used, and thai ~he trees not be placed directly over the main~. Possible alternative varieties ~re palm trees (in clusters o{ 3). mahogany ~rees, or wil~ tamarind ~ees; Please also review your selection uith the City'shor~icultu~is~. Sincerely, Peter V. Mazzella, Utility Inspector MEMORANDUM Planning Dept. Attn: .J. Golden Sgt. D. Thrasher October 9, 1986 Boynton Center Plaza As per the discussion at the TRB meeting on 07 Oct. 86, ~%e folloWing is recommended: _ 1) 12 foot entrance only on north end of property and a/z exit only on south end of property, with signs~ Pole mounted perimeter lighting:with photocell actLvation. 2) 3) Re-name the project Police Dept. DT/gg MEMORANDUM 8 October 1986 TO: FROM: RE: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director BQynton Center Plaza -Staff Comments Please be advised of the Planning Department's comments in connection with the above-referenced request for site plan approvat..~ 1. Dumpster to be placed on a concrete pad with a mininr~n ~mension of 10' x 10'. 2. Parking lot layout and design on paving and drainage o!ans to conform t-o site-plan .... 3. The name of the project is unacceptable as it closet~,-mimics Other projects with the name "Boynton". This can result in much con- fusion with regard to provision of emergency service~., 4. There is insufficient room to the rear of the buildin~ with regard to opening of rear doors, access, loading activities, trash removal, etc. It is recommended,that the rear driveway be at ~east 20 feet wide to provide sufficient room to accomodate these activities and to allow for a greater turning radius around the co~ners of the building. 5. It is recommended that the two driveways onto Federat~-~ighway be converted from two-way to one-way traffic flow with theentrance at the northern property boundary and the exit at the southern property boundary. This'will help to minimize'.the hazardous northbound left turn movement at the existing median cut on Federal Highway. /bks MEMORANDUM October 7t 1986 TO: FROM: RE: James Golden, Assistant City Planner Rick Walke DirectOr of Public Works'-:'~~- Boynton Center Plaza - -~ .... It appears that the access to truck traffic behind the Boynton Center Plaza is not wide enough to alioW/Sanitati°n~ Vehicles to reach and empty dumpster. Public Works should be contacted to allow enough, room to ~2cess dumpster. ' /bks Rick Walk.e MEMORANDUM Carmen Annunziato Planning Director Kevin J..Hallahan For ester /Horti cul turi st .October 10, 1986 Boynton Center Plaza Site Plan ~- This memorandum is in reference to the landscape plan for the above project. The plans ~hould be changed to include the following comme~nts: ~ 1. The' Ficus Benjamina trees are not permitted to be planted within 20 feet of any improvements, especially the under- gro~ utility easements (Landscape Ordinance ~81-22). 2. The h~ge material along U.S. #1 should be 36" in height at ~ of planting (Landscape ordinance ~1-22). 3.The i~erior landscaping requirements of 20 ft. per park- ing st~a!t is lacking. , 4. There should be a notation 'as to the~ type of automatic irri- gation sgstem installed to give 100% coverage of the landscape areas- ¢ KJH:ad DESCRIPTION ~at part of the North '400 '~.9~_' '.~ ~. ~..~25. feet of the Southeast O'~_~rte~. (S.E.~). -.of Section 33, Township 45 =~m/..'.~, Ra~¥ ~3'.E~. _t, lying East of 'the East. right-of-.way . - line of'the-Florida East-(k)ast'~Rail. way Cc~pany .and West of the' W~st right-Of-way lin~.. line of the Dixie H/ghw~y, before U.' S. Highway No. 1 was-laid out and. C°nstruct_~t, containing 10 acres, more-or less,.:less the additional right-of-way for U.. S. High.- way No~ 1 conv~ed~tb, the State of.Florida by O.R.B~ 153, page 337, Palm B~ach County' Pa/m Beach. County, 'Florida',-lying bet%,~_n Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way and. Old Dixie Highway and Westerly line·' of Old Dixie Highway right-of-way being a straight. llne, =and at its North end be. Lng 1048 feet. East of the Florida East Coast Railway Ccm~'· party right-of-way and the South end of said Westerly 1./ne. being 615.4 feet East' of the Florida East Coast .Railway ~y right-of-way. 43 East; Palm Beach County, Florida, with the East r~ght-of-way line of the Florida East Coast Railway.; 'thence run Easterly, along said south line of section 33, a dis-' tance of 409.08 feet; thence Northerly, at'right angles, a distance of 81.69 feet; thanc~ Easterly, along a line parallel tot he said South line of Section 33, to a point in'a line 15 feet. N0rt~,rly"of and par .allel to the centerline of Old Dixie High- way; thence Northeasterly, along 'said parallel i/ne, a distance of 313 feet, more or less, to a po'%nt in a line 275 feet North of and parallel to 'the said South line of Section 33; thence wes~ly,' al.c~g, said i/ne, to its intersect/on with the aforemen-' t/oned East right-of-way ~ of the Florida East Coast Railway; thence Southerly, along .said right-of-way line to the Point of Beg'.lnning afor~m~_ntio .ned. · ADDENDUM D MEMORANDUM TO Carmen Annunziato Planning Director Don Jaeger Chief Plans Review Inspector October 8, 1986 Site Plan Modification: The Grove Shopping Center As a condition of site plan approval, the following. comments should be incorporated into the related documents: 1. City Code requires a buffer wall to be constructed of masonry material, stucco, and then painted. This type-Of wat! was approved on the original site plan. The modification ~equesting a change to a precast unit does no~ comply with Code. Construction submittal,details for the masonry wall should be provided at time of permit 2. City Code requires a 5 foot sidewalk along major arterial roads. This sidewalk should continue through the driveways and be ramped for handicapped accessibility. 3. Handicapped ramps are required by state code to-'be loca~dat a maximumcomplex, interval of 100 feet along the front walkway of.~the 6. The light posts along the.,north property line ~-hould be set back from the curb to allo~ for a vehicle overhang o£ 2 £eet. 5.beThe4 doublefeet wideStripingo~ eachf°r side.the handicapped parking~stalls_, should 6. The buildings are required to be separated with!_~ hour ~re walls at intervals estabTished by Chapter 4 of. ti0 Standar.d Building Code ..... The applicant's prompt compliance with the preceding comments will insure a timely permitting process. ...,~. DJ:bh Grayarc- PA). B~x 2944 -- Ha~ro~l. CT 06104 CALl. TOLl.. I~REE:'I ~800-243.52S0 REPLY MESSAGE Fold At (4) To Fit Grayarc Window Envelope It EWIOP ' FROM REORDER ITEM PLEASE REPLY TO ~- SIGNED REPLY DATE: MEMORANDUM October 7, 1986 TO: Mr. Jim Golden Planning Department FROM: Tom Clark City Engineer Site Plans, The Grove Comments: TAC/ck 1. 4 x 6 .extruded curbing im' no longer permit~ted~ 2. Drainage calculations are required, inCluding percolation test results. 3. Details required on newly created island at Old Dixie and U.S. #1. ' 4. R.O.W. deed to County, required for a~iditiona]_ R.0.w. 5. Transitions for changes in base thickness to be shown on cross-s, ections. _ 6. Five foot sidewalks are required in County and State R.O.W. 's. Tom~_ Clark MEMOR~NDU~ TO : OATE: SUBJECT: Carmen ~nnunziato October ?, 19BB TRB comments - The Grove Our approval is conditioned upon the £oliowing change: 1) Base-mounted post indicator Valves should be uali~mounted type. used instead, o~ ~he cc: File S ~ ncerel ¥, ~ Peter V. Hazzell~ U~il~y InsPeCtor MEMORANDUM October 8, 1986 TO: FROM: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director RE: The Grove Shopping Center Site Plan ModifTcation Revised Shared Parkin9 Allocation.:- Section ll-H (13) of the Zoning Code contains the following, recently-amended provision for shared parking: 13. Parking spaces required in this Ordinance for ~one use or structure may be allocated in part:or in w~ie for the required parking spaces of another use or--~Lructure if quantitative evidence is provided showing that parking demand for the different uses or ~struc~ares would occur on different days of the week or at different hours..- Quantitative evidence-shall include but not be limited to the following: ~_~ (a) Field studies and traffic counts-prepared by a traffic consultant experienced in-parkin~ studies. (b) AdjuStments for seasonal variatio~s. (c) Estimates for peak parking'demand~ased on statistical data furnished by theUrban Land Institute or some other recogniZediand p~ing and design ~rganization. ~_ All data furnished must be statistically valid. In addition, a minimum.buffer of 10% shall be provided to ensure that a sufficient number of parking spaces are available at times of peak hour use. Said buffer is to becalculated based on the folloWing formula: Buffer = ~urplus shared parkinq1 on-site + shared parking provided2 X 100 % lshared parking spaces not required by the City of Boynton Beach zoning regulations for the proposed use. 2parking spaces required for the proposed use as per the City of Boynton Beach zoning regulations. Evidence for joint allocation of required space shall be submitted to the Technical Review B6ard, and approval 'of joint allocation of required parking spaces shall be made by the Council, after review and recommendations by the Planning and Zoning'Board. - With respect to the above, Goldenholz-Fischer Arc~tects and Planners, agent for the Grove Partners Limited, requesting approval of an amended shared parking allocation in connection with a site plan modification to previously approved shopping center. The shopping center is to be located at the intersec6ion of Federal Hiqk~w=.-g~and Old Dixie Highway, west side. The applicant is requesting approval of the revised shared parking al!ocation ~ order to allow for the addition of a 22,000 square foot ~nema which would include six screens and 1,470 fixedly. The proposed modification would include 140,633 ~q~_~are feet of retail floor space and the 1,470 seat (22,.0-0.0) square foot cinema. The par~ing requirement for the retail shopping center is 140,633 % 200 = 703 spaces, wh/3~e the parking requirement for the cinema is 1470 seats ~ 4 = 368 spaces. The proposed site plan would provide for 431 on-site parking spaces which would meet the~cOde requirement for the retail floor ~pace with the remaining 228 parking spaces being allocated to the cinema. The additional parking reqdired for_the 1470 seat ~cinema (368 -.228 = 140 spaces) is to be shared parking. According to the Shared Parking Study prepared by Keith and Schnars, P.A. for.the Grove Shopping.Center, the pe~k hour demand for parking for both the retail shopping center and the cinema combined would occur on Saturday aft.ernoons between the hours of.1:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. This projectionof peak hour parking demand is basedon Urban' Land Institute data which has been adjusted in part to incorporate site specific .conditions. B&sed on this worst case scenario the highest parking accumulation for the retail portion .of the *shopping center would occur at approximately 2:00 p.m. Saturday afternoon and would require 514 of the required 703 parking spaces required by code, leaving a Statistical surplus of 189 parking spaces to be shared by the cinema as follows: On-site parking allocated to cinema = 228 spaces Shared parking available from retail = 189 s~ace~ Total parking available to cinema at peak = 417 spaces The above analysis indicates that sufficient parking is available at peak hour use to meet the zoning code requirement for the cinema (368 spaces) leaving a statistical surplus of 49 shared parking spaces to be allocated toward the calculation of the required 10% buffer as follows: .. 49 X-100% = 13.3% ~ 228 + 140 'i ~_- - Therefore, given the worst case scenario of'total parking accumulation (Saturdays at 2:00 p.m.), the shared p~rking allocation for the Grove Shopping Center would s~i!allow for a statistical surplus of at least 49 parking~ ~aces. On Tuesday, October 7, 1986 the Technical 'Review Board met at which time they recommended approval of the Sh=~ Parking allocation as submitted. It was the conse~_~-us of the TRB that the proposed shared parking allocation was prepared and documented in accordance with code requirements and that there was s~fficient opportunity avait~!~ for shared parking to occur on-site given the mix of us~s in the proposed shopping center /lat CARMEN S. ~.ANNUNZIATO MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: October 8, 1986 Chairman & Members Planning And Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director The Grove Shopping center - staff comments 'lease be advised of the Planning Department's commence, in connection with the above-referenced request for an amend-ed site plan: Parking lot regulations require high pressure sodium ..... lighting. The 10% minimum buffer required by the zoning re~utations for-shared parking i~ to be maintained upon incorporation of the staff comments. The buffer wall required by the zoning regulatior~adjacent to residentially zoned property is to 'be of CBS construction. A p~ecast concrete wall is not acceptable. Developer to submit landscape plan for the island at the intersection of Old Dixie and Federal Highways. Previous comments concerning traffic signalization.and right-of-way needs for Old Dixie Highway must be ,doc~unented prior to sign-off and permitting. CARMEN S. ANNUNZIATO MEMORANDUM Carmen Annunziato Planning Director Kevin J. Hallahan Fo.res ter/Horticul t uti s t .October t0, 1986 The Grove Shopping Center Site Plan Modification This memorandum~iS, in reference to the Tree Management Plan for the above .project.. Representatiwes for 't~e developer have in- dicated that because of changes to"the site plan, some of the trees ori~inally slated to be preserved will have to be removed and replaced'. ~ ~his is especiallg noted to'occur along the Northern propert~_'~:line. I suggest the representatives show how each specific tree will be affected and this_information addressed in the Tree Management Plan. The trees .along the Northern property line should be replaced (if desired for removal) with large, buffer/ng species of trees, e.~g. Red Cedar, which will provide immediate visual screening for the adjacent homeowners. Any other trees r~moved throughout the site should also be replaced with equal or larger sized trees. This information should be included as an addendum to the original Tree-Management Plan. Ki in KJH: ad Ha 7 ~ ahan MEMORANDUM TO, Planning Dept. Attn: J. Golden Sgt. D. Thrasher DATI' October 9, 1986 The Grove Shopping Center As per the discussion at ~%he TRB meeting on 07 Oct. 86, ~le following is recommended: DT/gg 1) Merging traffic signs on one way lane; Old Dixie High-~y. Police Dept. MEMORRNOUM -TO : DATE: Carmen Rnnunziato, Plann~ng Director October ?, 1986 SUBJECT: TRB commenGs - Oakuood Square' Our only commen~ regarding this project is thaG a G" gate vaive be added ~o the ~ire line on the north side o~ the parcel which cur~iy has only a po~G indicaGor valve. The gage valve should be pieced ~t ~he tee ~rom the 8" wager mein. cc: File Sincerely, ~7 Peter V. Mezzella, ' U~ility Inspector MEMORANDUM TO Planning Dept. Attn: J. Golden Sgt. D. Thrasher FILl SUBJICT 09 October 1986 Oakwood Square As per the discussion at the TRB meeting on 07 Oct. 86, +~2~e following is recommended.: "~ 1) DT/gg Detail drawing on wall mounted lights on r-ear of bu~ng. /Sgt. D. ThraSher Police Dept. . MEMORANDUM October 8, 1986 TO: FROM: Chairman and Members Planning and Zoning Board Carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director Oakwood S2~uare Sho~- ~n--~ C?nter - Staff ~Comme~ts Please be advised of the Planning Department's commend:in connection with the above-referenced request for an amended site plan: /lat Previous commitments for roadway improvements/sig~_iiZation must be properly 'documented prior to sign-off an~ permitting .......... Loading zone L-2 protrudes into the access aisle atthe rear of building D and should either be moved or el~inated. Additional coolers/freezers tobe added to' the' rear.~of the shopping center will require a site plan modifica~On and the additional square footage must be included ink.he parking space calculation for required parking. CARMEN S. ZIAT6 ' MEMORANDUM Carmen A~nunziato Planning Director October 10, 1986 Kevin J. Hallahan Fores ter/Horti cul turis t Oakwood Square Shopping Center Site Plan Modification I have dfscussed'the attached rough dra'ft letter with Mr. Ed Duggan in reference to the Tree Management Plan for the above project. Mr. Duggan .compiled ~his letter for mg ~eview, which he will then resubmit in a formal letter to' gout office. I suggeste~ the following items be included in his resubmittal: 1. A time schedule be included with each of the listed activities in reference to the 'humber of dags, weeks or months for each activ~tg to ~e.~' performed. 2. That a "snow fence" be placed approXimatelg 100' from the Oak Tree's to be--preserved in the N.E. corner of the property. This fence must be installed prior to initiating ang filling of Soil o~ the project site. The fence should be inspected bg mgse!f ~nd the trucking.contractor ~o assure that no trucks are permitted i~nside the fence area." Root _u~ing of all relocated trees should be initiated as soon as po-s~le to allow maximum root re'generation before transplant- ing. Construction diagrams for all tree wells should be submitted with the Tree Management Plan. A fo~ Tree Management Plan should be submitted to' gour office ~o be placed on file for the project. Hatlahan ~ A t t achment ' KJH: ad The following guide lines will be followed in order to protect the oak trees on the above mentioned site. The clearinG and fill operation will begin at the south end of the property at which time the oak trees at the north end of the property ~ill be tagged and categorized in the followinG manner: 1) to be removed and discarded -- 2) to be relocated 3) to remain undisturbed Once the identificatior~ is complete and inspected by the fo~rester, the the unwanted trees will be removed in order to allow for easy access to the protected trees.. O~ce the area is cleared of unwanted materials the final preparaticms as. set forth in the tree management plan will be made (under the supervisiom, of the forrester)for the relocation. The fill operation will be '~oncentrated on the areas which will be receiving 'the relocated oaks. These oaks will be relocated t~o the new permanent locations to avoid .any-other unnecessary further relocations. During the ~location process tree wells will be constructed as required for the oak~ that will remain undisturbed. Until such time that the tree wells are completed and found aceptable by the ' forrester th~ fill operation will remain at a ~afe distance determined by the forrester. As discussed~ with Kevin once the oaks are relocated, they will be protected from the construction activities and will be watered two times a day for the first two weeks and once a day for the followinG two weeks. At the end of four weeks Kev-in w~ i~.~pect the oaks on the site and make t~he reco~nendations. ~c.e'.~ -'_/~.,~.~estio. n wil.1 be p..r?tected at all times from any deleterious t~..l_v_l~ ~_.~e, ro~s~ter, wl_ll .be notlfie, d prior to any construction activity pri~Y~ ~_t~__~ens±~ .r,eet o~.th.e .oaks: ~ The forrester will be consulted -- letter. ~ ~U tne pro3ect,eG schedule of events as stated in this LEGAL DESCRIPTION A P,A.R~CEL. OF LAND L~'ING IN THE PALM BEACH FARMS COMPANY PLAT NO. g OF SECT1ON 30, TO NHSIP t~5 SOUTH, RANGE t~3 EAST, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK ~. PAGE 73 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 30; THENCE NORTH OO° §1' 37" WEST, ALONG THE ~AS,'r LINE OF SAID SECTION 30, A DISTANCE OF t~0.O0 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88 22 1~" WEST, ALONG A LINE ~0.00 FEET NORTH ' OF AND. ~A~. ALLEL W4TH THE SOU~T,H ~L,I, NE OF SAID SECTION 30, A DISTANCE OF ~95.0g FEET; THENCE 'NORTH O!° 20 0~ WE~T, ALONG THE EAST BOUNDARY OF LA~. OF TARA P.U.D. UNIT 1, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK ~;, PAGES 102 AND I 'D A DISTANCE OF 77~.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH Ol° t~l, THE NEXT DESCRIBED CURVE, A DISTANCE IbF 80.01 POINT OF BEGINNING (P.O.B.}; ' ' THENCE.: ALONG SAID CURVE {BEING THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE .EVARD AS SHOWN ON SAID LAKES OF TARA. UNIT Y, HAVING A RADIUS OF I g69,86 FEET, THROUG~':A OF 06° 39' ~!9", A DISTANCE OF 217.tt7 FEET TO THE O,F A: CURVE IN THE SAID NORTH RIGHT OF AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 19~9.86 FEET; THI CURVE, T~HROUGH A CENTRAL' ANGLE OF 06° 3~' 22t*.39 FEET; 'T~ENCE NORTH 00o §i' 37" WEST, ALONG OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CONGRESS AVENUE,,A WEST OF THE SAID EAST LINE OF SECTION 30, ~,gT~ FE~T; THENCE .SOUTH 1~° 13' -sg" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2205.23 CE, SOUTILI, 00° 33' 17" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 981.9~ FEET; THENCE 22 1:5 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 370.2t~ FEET TO THE POINT OF RI SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A HAl CE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A 19", A DISTANCE OF 23g.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF OF A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHE~TERLY AND HAVING A THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY, ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A ~;", A DISTANCE OF 21t~.30 FEET; THENCE NORTH ~5° THE PREVIOUS CURVE A DISTANCE OF 2.51.32 FEET CURVATURE OF A :CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING-A DO FEET; THENCe-EASTERLY ALONG SAID 'CURVE THROUGH OF'13° 38' 39"~ A DISTANCE OF 95.2.5 FEET TO THE POINrF ~ A CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A THENCE.EASTERLY, A~ONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL, 09' .:sg",' A/DISTANCE OF I60.57 FEET; THENCE 5~U1:~ 8? ENT TO THE?.PREVtOUS CURVE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY PR WAY LINE OE SOUTHWEST CONGRES'~ BOULEVAR 158.09;.~FEET;' THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 88° 35' 5-5" EAST, RIGH.T-~-OF .WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 30~t.03 FEET TO THE '" CONTAINING 52.3~ ACRES"MORI~'~".~SR. LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS,' REsERVATiONS AND RIGHTS OF WAY ~DDEND~ E MEMORA'NDUM Carmen Annunziato Planning Director' Don Jaeger Chief Plans Revi~ Inspector October 7, 1986 Site Plan Modifications: The Landings (Entrance Signag ! The follow~_ng comments should be address,ed before applying to the Building Department for sign permits: 1. Commu~LtyAppearance Board approval,is required for the landscaping details around both signs. 2. As per the Sign Ordinance, all signs must be designed to withstand a wind load of 50 pounds per square foot. Calculations and statements to this effect should be shown on sheets containing the sr_~--uctural details for the individual signs. The applicant's prompt compliance with the preceding comments will insure a timety permitting process. DJ:bh Don MEMORANDUM Carmen Annunziato Planning Director Don Jaeger Chief Plans Review Inspector October 7, 1986 Site Plan Modification: Meadows 300, Tract G (Recreational amenities & storage buildinz) As a condition of site plan approval, the following commenta should be incorporated into the related documents: The location of all buildings and-amenities must be accurately located on the property. 2. Any exterior lighting for the pool or tennis court areas should be indicated on the site plan. ,- 3. The fence and sidewalks for the tennis courn should be ~dicated on the site plan. In order to facilitate the building permit review process~ ~e following information should be provided at the time of submittal: Two sets of Co~unity Appearance Board approved plans. Palm Beach County Health Uepartment approval for the pool and the public facilities building. e Two sets of working drawings for the constructioB o.f the buildings, amenities, and parking lot,. 4. Engineering on the pool. 5. Soil tests. 6. Water and ~sewer flow rates by a registered professional engineer for the pool and other'structures in order'to calculate ~he capital facilities charges. 7. The public facilities building must be handicapped accessible. The applicant's prompt compliance with the preceding comments will insure a timely permitting process. DJ:bh Don Ja~r