Loading...
Minutes 06-12-86MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: Walter "Marty" Trauger Chairman Garry Winter Vice Chairman Marilyn G. Huckle Simon Ryder George deLong John Pagliarulo Robert Wandelt William Schultz, Alternate ABSENT: Norman Gregory, Alternate Carmen Annunziato Planning Director Tim Cannon Senior City Planner Jim Golden Assistant City Planner James Vance City Attorney Chairman Trauger called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. The meeting proceeded with Chairman Trauger introducing the members of the Board. He recognized the presence in the audience of the Vice Mayor Carl Zimmerman, Councilman Ezell Hester, City Manager Peter L. Cheney, Executive Vice President of the Greater Boynton Beach Chamber of Commerce Owen Anderson, Councilwoman Dee Zibelli, Tim Cannon, Senior City Planner, Jim Golden, Assistant City Planner, James Vance, City Attorney, Rebecca Theim, Sun Sentin~ ~ Bill Cooper, Palm Beach Post, Thomas Procopati, Court Reporter, taking notes on behalf of Mr. Perry, 1675 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, FL, and the Recording Secretary. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Meeting of Wednesday, May 21, 1986 Chairman Trauger recommended that approval of the minutes from the special meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board held on May 21, 1986 be postponed until the Board members completed reading the minutes. Mr. deLong moved to approve Chairman Trauger's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Ryder. The motion carried 7-0. - 1 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOyNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 ANNOUNCEMENTS None. COMMUNICATIONS None. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT AND REZONING 1. PROJECT NAME: The Shoppes of Woolbright AGENT: Kieran J. Kilday OWNERS: First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach, Estates of N. R. Field and Janet Knox Field, Jonathan Kislak and Sol C. Shay, Trustees, and Seaboard System Railroad, Inc. LOCATION: Northwest corner of Woolbright Road and Interstate 95 between the LWDD E-4 Canal and the Seaboard System Railroad, Inc. DESCRIPTION: Request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from "Moderate Density Residential" and "High Density Residential" to "Local Retail Commercial" and rezoning from R-lA "Single-Family Residential", R-3 "Multi-Family Residential" and C-2 "Neighborhood Commercial" to PCD (Planned Commercial Development District) - 2 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 for the purpose of allowing construction of a 211,000 square foot retail/office complex to include a 63,000 square foot supermarket, a 30,000 square foot Department Store, three (3) office buildings, a branch banking facil- ity and two (2) out parcels on 29.64 acres. Mr. Annunziato stated this is an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The MaYOr has pointed out the categories the land is currently in an~ the requested categories of local retail with the zoning in the Planned Commercial Development. Location Mr. Golden displayed an overlay on the screen which denoted the location of the property. Mr. Annunziato advised the location of the property is generally south of S. W. llth Avenue, as platted, but not constructed, between the Seaboard Coastline Railroad and the Lake Worth Drainage District E-4 Canal, in the northwest corner of Interstate 95 and Woolbright Road. With respect to the uses and zoning surrounding this property, Mr. Annunziato referenced Exhibit B-1. In Mr. Annunziato's analysis, he attempted to analyze the impact of this pro- posed development on two different sets of land use and zoning. This was necessitated by the applicant suing the City over recently denied zoning requests. He stated one scenario looks at the impact of this proposed development upon the existing zoning and land use. The second scenario would compare this proposal to the judicially imposed zoning pattern north of the proposed Planned Commercial Development. With respect to the overlay displayed on the screen, Mr. Annunziato stated north of the property, the property is in a moderately density residential category and zoning is R-1. It is primarily vacant, and to the north of the vacant R-lA tract is the single-family neighborhood of Lake Boynton Estates with homes in the $60,000 to $70,000 price range. - 3 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Recent development activity in the area indicates that vacant property can be effectively developed. To the north is a strip of R-3 zoned property occupying a high density residential category which would permit a maximum density of 10.8 dwelling units per acre. Directly to the east of the proposed Planned Commercial Development is the Seaboard Coastline Railroad. Farther to the east is a vacant tract zoned M-l, Light Industrial Development. Farther to the east beyond the M-1 zoned parcel is Interstate 95. To the south of the parcel is Woolbright Road, and the commercial and industrial developments known as Pylon Interstate Park, oned C-1 and C-3, and the Boynton Commerce Center which is oned Planned Industrial Development. Mr. Annunziato explained to the west of the parcel is the Lake Worth Drainage District E-4 Canal right-of-way, and farther to the west is a vacant tract of land zoned C-l, Office and Professional Commercial. This C-1 tract has a depth of approximately 160 feet, and lying directly north is the Lake Worth Drainage District Canal L-26. Farther to the north of Canal L-26 is a single-family residential sec- tion of Palm Beach Leisureville. For all of the land uses and zoning classifications mentioned above, the zoning is consistent with the recommended Future Land Use as depicted in the Comprehensive Plan. Exhibit B-2 Mr. Annunziato advised that Exhibit B-2 would be a scenario of the court imposed zoning for Planned Commercial Development. He attempted to superimpose the recently denied Planned Unit Development over the proposed Planned Commercial Development. Mr. Annunziato discovered that all areas east, south, and west of the proposed Planned commercial Development, and land use and development adja- cent to PCD would remain the same as in Scenario 1. However, if Tradewinds is successful in its lawsuit against the City, the land use and zoning for the property to the north would change to accommodate the Woolbright Place Planned Commercial Development. Mr. Annunziato stated multi-family housing is provided to the north of the pro- posed Woolbright Planned Commercial Development, and a church and school to the northwest. Mr. Annunziato noted - 4 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 for a more detailed explanation of the proposed development, the Board members could refer to Mr. Annunziato's memo, dated March 4, 1986. Exhibit C Proposed Use of Land Mr. Golden displayed Exhibit C on the screen for the Board's review. Mr. Annunziato stated the proposed Planned Commercial Development orients itself as two separate developments, even though it is one Planned Commercial Development. To the west of S. W. 8th Street extended would be the office or professional portion which provides for four buildings, in addition to a bank facility, totalling 38,000 square feet. To the east of S. W. 8th Street, there are uses including a food store, barber store, retail outlets, office, bank, and out parcels. Including the bank and office buildings, the total is 211,000 square feet. Provided on-site is a wet retention area and a greenbelt along the north and west pro- perty lines and along S. W. 8th Street. In addition to the points of access proposed on S. W. 8th Street, the applicant is proposing to connect into the collector road which will run from S. W. 8th Street to the Seaboard Coastline Railroad tracks which may accommodate a railroad crossing in the future. Impact on Adjoininq Land Use and Zoninq With respect to the impact on adjoining land use and zoning, Mr. Annunziato stated to the north, the property is zoned R-lA and R-3, and to the east, the property is zoned R-1AA. Because of the substantial difference in land use type and intensity, the proposed commercial zoning will, in effect, result in the following three kinds of negative impacts on the residential property: The creation of a tier of non-conforming lots along the south side of S. W. llth Avenue. - 5 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 e With respect to the homes which would front on the south side of S. W. llth Avenue, the rear of the shopping center will interface with the front of future single-family homes, and this interface will substantially impair the quality of life of future residents as a result of noise, odor and glare from the rear of the shopping center. An increase in traffic would result because of the change in land uses from residential to commer- cial and would substantially impair the quality of life in residential areas. Mr. Annunziato noted it is the Planning Department's opinion the proposed offices along the west side of S. W. 8th Street will result in little or no negative impact on the proper- ties to the west because of the configuration and the inten- sity of use. Scenario 2 Mr. Annunziato stated when the shopping center plan is placed against the PUD, several of the problems of the land use conflicts are eliminated. The non-conforming lots along the northern property line which were created no longer exist, and were replaced by a collector roadway which serves the property. Mr. Annunziato advised the rear of the shopping center would interface with high density multi-family residential dwellings, which would not constitute a land use conflict. However, the Planning Department is concerned about the number of trips per day generated and the impact on residen- tial areas north of the PCD. Planned Commercial Development Standards Mr. Annunziato stated there are three standards listed in the Planned Commercial Development regulations. These three standards are as follows: 1. Relation to major transportation facilities. - 6 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 2. Roadway improvements and utility extensions. 3. The physical character of the site. Standard Number 1 suggests PCD's should be located where access to major roadways is afforded and where traffic levels generated in residential areas will be acceptable. Mr. Annunziato stated it is the Planning Department's conclusion that the Woolbright PCD meets the major road access portion of this criteria adjacent to Woolbright Road, but fails with respect to the level of traffic generated in the residential area to the north. With respect to Standard Number 2, Mr. Annunziato stated it suggests the applicant shall be responsible for constructing and dedicating all infrastructure necessary to serve his site, including replacing roadway capacity. It is the Planning Department's assumption the applicant will meet Standard Number Two, if approved. Concerning Standard Number 3, Mr. Annunziato advised this is the environmental standard and is concerned with aspects of the site. The Planning Department can report the site is appropriate for the suggested development from an environ- mental point of view. Mr. Annunziato stated it was deter- mined no hazards to persons or property on or off the site should develop as a result of this project from flooding, erosion, or similar dangers. Mr. Annunziato reported there will be further discussion of Items Two and Three when the infrastructure necessary to serve this site is subsequently analyzed in this report. Economic Standards Mr. Annunziato stated there are two economic standards which must be met in the Planned Commercial Development, and they require the submission of two types of economic documents - a market study and an estimation of employment. With respect to the market study, Mr. Annunziato advised the applicant resubmitted a market study which was previously - 7 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 submitted for a commercial project which was denied. However, the mix of land uses was similar. The market study concluded there was an ample opportunity for retail uses at this location. Mr. Annunziato stated the second aspect of the economic report concerns employment. The applicant submitted an employment report, indicating that at buildout 695 persons would be employed, of which 520 persons would be employed in the retail sector, and 175 persons would be employed in the professional/medical sector. In response to Mr. deLong's inquiry, Mr. Annunziato clarified that the conclusions reached in the market study indicated there was a market for retail floor space or an economically viable market, and the Planning Department is assuming that condition has not changed. INFRASTRUCTURE Referring to Exhibit A, Mr. Annunziato will advise the Board members how the site can be served from a utility point of view. Utilities: Water Mr. Annunziato advised the applicant is proposing to extend a 10 inch water main through the limits of his property, which will serve a few tracts east and west off his water main. The impact on public facilities from this proposal would be less than if the property was developed for single- family and multi-family purposes, with the difference being 11,800+ gallons per day versus 7,600+ gallons per day. He noted there is available water capacity. However, the Utility Department is recommending the applicant extend the proposed 10 inch water main northward to Ocean Drive, in order to tie into an existing 10 inch water main. This will enhance fire flow characteristics and reliability of ser- vice. Utilities: Sewer Concerning the sewer, Mr. Annunziato stated the vacant property south of Ocean Drive, between the Lake Worth - 8 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Drainage District E-4 Canal and the Seaboard Coastline Railroad, is to be served by an existing lift station located near the intersection of S. W. 3rd Avenue and S. W. 5th Street. The applicant has proposed a gravity system which would connect to the existing lift station. It has been determined the sewage transmission and treatment capacity should be adequate, but the construction of gravity sewers would be required, and the applicant has agreed to do so in his plans. Based upon submission by the applicant, the Planning Department determined the sewage generated will be less by this proposal by 9,470 gallons per day versus 7,600 gallons per day. Topography, Vegetation and Soils Mr. Annunziato advised the togography on the site slopes generally from east to west, with land elevations ranging from approximately 20 feet to 12 or 13 feet along the western perimeter of the site. The soils are primarily sandy in nature. There is an on-site vegetation, and a large stand of mature trees are located in the southwest quarter of the site. Mr. Annunziato referenced a memo from the City Forester recommending the developer relocate the trees which exist on the site and try to incorporate as much tree preservation in the design layout of the project. Drainage With respect to drainage, Mr. Annunziato advised the appli- cant has submitted a schematic drainage plan that provides for a system of swales, sewer pipes, and retention ponds, which would be required by the permitting agencies. However, if approved, the Planning Department realizes there should be strict compliance with the requirements of Article X, Section 5B, of the City's Subdivision Regulations. Roadway Capacity Analysis With respect to roadway capacity analysis, Mr. Annunziato stated the applicant submitted to the City a report prepared by Mr. Murray which concluded a comparable number of trips - 9 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 per day are generated by this proposal in connection with the PUD when related to the existing mix of land uses and zonings. The Planning Department has determined the pro- posed development would generate 10,788 trips per day ver- sus 8,257 trips per day. The applicant has reported only the intersection of Woolbright Road and Seacrest Boulevard does not function above Level of Service D. Mr. Annunziato noted there are several reasons why the results of this traffic impact analysis are substantially different from the results of the analysis submitted in con- nection with the recently denied Planned Unit Development. These reasons are as follows: A methodology which deducts 25% of all trips as a result of Multi-Land Use Development. A methodology which deducts an additional 25% of the commercial trips as Passing Retail Trips. Use of a different standard for determining Level of Service. In this instance, Mr. Murray has utilized the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Level of Service matrix which appears in their recently adopted Regional Planning Council Transportation Policy, and is consistent with the Evaluation and Appraisal Report recommendation. 4. A more adequate assessment of background traffic. In order to evaluate the applicant's prepared traffic report, the Planning Department requested a traffic con- sultant review the Murray Report and assess the strengths and shortcomings of the methodology, and the assumptions which were proposed by Mr. Murray. The findings of the traffic consultant are as follows: The applicant utilized a higher trip generation rate for parks in the Woolbright Place Planned Unit Development than is generally accepted - 25 trips per acre per day versus 5 to 6 trips per day per acre, as published in the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) Trip Generation Report. - 10 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MINUTES BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 The applicant used a larger percentage reduction of Multi-Land Use Development trips than what was warranted - 25% versus 10% to 15%. The reduction in Passing Trips, employed by the applicant, is reasonable. The trip distribution to the southwest was underestimated. a The trip generation rate for office/warehouse land uses utilized by the applicant is somewhat lower than normal - 4.88 trips per thousand square feet versus 6 to 7 trips per thousand square feet. The applicant utilized a low occupancy rate, 70% to determine traffic generated from the proposed hotels in the area. 8 The impact of Woolbright Road extended was not included in the applicant's analysis. When the impact of the proposed development, based on the adjustments suggested in the Keller Report, is generated, the Level of Service at the intersection of Woolbright Road and Seacrest Boulevard is reduced to Level of Service E, as opposed to Level of Service D, projected by Murray. Although differences in impact resulted from a review of the Murray analysis, the differences did not substantially change the findings of the applicant's study, except for the intersection of Woolbright Road and Seacrest Boulevard. Mr. Annunziato stated in addition to the analysis prepared by Mr. Keller, the Planning Department made the following additional findings concerning traffic: The Murray Report failed to consider a church and school would be constructed, whether or not the application is approved. - 11 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 In fact, it would eliminate 42 single-family homes from the impact generated under the existing land use and superseded by the church counts which the applicant has provided. The Murray Report utilizes a greater trip genera- tion rate for multi-family units under the existing zoning versus the proposed multi-family units in PUD. The Murray Report utilizes a greater trip genera- tion rate for retail uses in the existing zoning versus the proposed zoning. The Murray Report overstates the number of square feet for potential commercial versus proposed commercial. Mr. Annunziato stated, from the existing zoning, there are about 11 acres in C-2, and has concluded the property could be developed for approximately 75,000 square feet, as opposed to 135,000 square feet, assumed by the applicant. Mr. Annunziato advised when all these adjustments are taken into consideration, the number of trips per day, for the existing pattern of zoning and land use, utilizing the Murray methodology is 6,841, as opposed to 10,119 trips per day. When compared to the trips generated, as a result of the project requested, plus the Woolbright Place PUD, the traffic generated is doubled, resulting in 6,841 trips per day versus 12, 816 trips per day. This comparison supports the assumption that the traffic generated will result in a negative impact on the properties to the north. Mr. Annunziato pointed out another area which deserves fUrther analysis and concerns the 25% average daily trip reduction for Multi-Land Use Developments and the 25% average daily trip reduction for Passing Trips. He noted the Palm Beach County Traffic Engineer does not recognize a reduction in the average daily trips for Multi-Land Use Development. Mr. Annunziato advised there are complimentary land uses on site, and not all the passing trips will enter the highway, - 12 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 and some of the passing trips will be convenient shopping trips. As an example, he explained some people might stop on the way home from work. That would not be considered a new trip. He stated the question reduces to whether or not there is a reasonable percentage reduction. Mr. Annunziato recommended to the Board, unless there is specific data provided, no more than a 10% reduction be accepted for Multi-Land Use Passing Trips, even though, the literature seems to indicate, in other parts of the nation, that 25% is reasonable. Mr. deLong questioned why Mr. Annunziato would recommend 10%. Mr. Annunziato clarified that without knowing exactly what the situation is at this location, you cannot defini- tely state that 25% works. Many of the passing trips depend on the mix of uses, intervening opportunities, and road construction factors. It may not be convenient to exit a six lane highway and make a convenience stop. Mr. Annunziato added, without detailed information for-each request, it is difficult to accept the assumption that 25%, in each instance, is acceptable. Mr. deLong questioned if the traffic engineer, whom the Planning Department hired to do an independent report, suggested 18%. Mr. Annunziato clarified that the traffic engineer suggested two things - 18% for one type of trip, and 15% for the trips to the north. Mr. Keller does agree with the 25% for passing trips, and this is a standard assumption. Mr. deLong pointed out as a result of a discussion held at a previous meeting, it was determined, if there were five eco- nomists and five traffic engineers in one room, you could get a variety of opinions since it is not an exact science. Mr. deLong noted it is difficult to fix a percentage. Mr. Annunziato agreed with Mr. deLong's statements, and believed, if the error should occur, it would occur on the conservative side. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY Mr..Annunziato stated there are two sets of Comprehensive Plan issues: - 13 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 1. Plan Policies 2. Other Comprehensive Plan Issues Mr. Annunziato provided the Board with six Comprehensive Plan Policies, which the Planning Department believed were pertinent to this request, and provided the recently pro- posed Evaluation and Appraisal Report Land Use, which the Planning Department is recommending, and has been reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. With respect to the other Comprehensive plan Policies, Mr. AnnunziatolprOvided to the Board a recreational recom- mendation which appeared several months in connection with the Woolbright PUD. He stated it appears in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, and has been reviewed by the Board in the Workshop Sessions. RECOMMENDATION Mr. Annunziato stated the recommendation in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report is to decrease intensity of land use generally in the area, west of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad and north of Woolbright Road, and east of the E-4 Canal. The Planning Department recommends the land use change in the single-family area from moderate to low den- sity would bring the existing land use into consistency with the proposed land use. The low density residential cate- gories supports this and is consistent with the singe-family home construction. Along the railroad, Mr. Annunziato stated the recommendation Ks to change from high to medium density, and this, in fact, mimics the land use pattern which exists in other parts of the City where duplexes have been developed along the railroad, particularly along S. W. 23rd Avenue, on the west side of the FEC railroad tracks. To the south, Mr. Annunziato advised there is a recommen- dation that land uses change from moderate t.o high density residential and local retail, office, professional, and com- mercial uses. The recommendation is for land use change south of the proposed collector road, which would connect to the Seaboard Coastline Railroad, a small distance north and - 14 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 south of S. W. llth Avenue, then intersects S. W. 8th Street as far south as is reasonably practicable, given traffic considerations, which is believed to be 660 feet. In response to Mr. deLong's inquiry, Mr. Annunziato clarified the commercial portion would be separated from the R-1 portion by the proposed collector road. ISSUES AND DISCUSSION Whether the Subject Property is Physically and Economically Developable under the Existing Zoninq Concerning the issues discussed, Mr. Annunziato stated there are six relevant issues which deserve further discussion. The first issue concerns whether or not the subject pro- perty is physically and economically developable under the existing zoning. He noted the property could be physically developed for about 57 single-family units, 75,000+ square feet of retail commercial, 30,000+ square feet of offices and 20 multi-family units under the current zoning. Substantial market activity is currently being exhibited for all the uses mentioned above within one mile of this site, except for the multi-family units. Mr. Annunziato pointed out that approximately 1½ miles away there is a multi-family development, along Congress Avenue. Therefore, it can be inferred from this development activity that the property could be reasonably developed consistent with the currently zoned uses. In response to Mr. deLong's inquiry, Mr. Annunziato clarified 75,000 square feet plus 30,000 square feet of office and professional uses, totalling 105,000 square feet, is being proposed on 11 acres. He noted the property is zoned C-2, and has a two-story limit. Based on the number of parking spaces provided, it would net 25% lot coverage on the C-2. Whether the Infrastructure in Place or Proposed is ~Sufficient to Support the Uses in the PCD In reference to the infrastructure, Mr. Annunziato noted that the infrastructure is in place or proposed, and is suf- ficient to support the PCD. Additionally, there will be - 15 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 some funding responsibilities on the part of the applicant, if this is approved, to construct roadway improvements. 3. Whether the Proposed PCD would be Compatible with the Existing Residential Land Use in the Vicinity With respect to whether the proposed PCD would be compatible with the existing residential land use in the vicinity, Mr. Annunziato stated it depends on whether or not the courts impose the Woolbright Place PUD on the City. This project may or may not be compatible with the residential land uses in the vicinity. If the PUD is imposed, land use compatibility is accomplished. However, if this project is analyzed, in connection with existing zoning, the project fails to meet the compatibility constraint as follows: 1. A tier of non-conforming lots would be created. 2. The noise, odor, fumes, and glare which would eminate from the rear of the proposed shopping center would result in a land use conflict between the shopping center and the houses which would front onto the north side of S. W. llth Avenue. m The nearly doubled level of traffic generated will have a negative bearing on the stability and cOndition of future housing in the area. ® Whether the Proposed PUD Meets the Standards Listed in Planned Commercial Development District Regulations of The Zoning Ordinance Concerning whether the proposed PUD standards meet the standards listed in PCD District Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Annunziato stated, except for the unreason- able intrusion of traffic into the residential area to the north, the project does meet the utility and environmental standards listed in the regulations. - 16- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Whether the Approval of this Proposed Planned Commercial Development Furthers the Intent and Purpose of the Policies Reflected on the Futur~ Land Use Map or Stated in the Comprehensive Plan With respect to whether this proposal furthers the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan Policy as noted on the Future Land Use Map, Mr. Annunziato stated this project is not suppor- tive of the Comprehensive Plan policies. The development of the project at this location will detract from the living environment of the area to the north, and will result in the land use incompatibility along its northern border, leading potentially to disinvestment in the housing stock. Additionally, it will not act to encourage the preservation of single-family neighborhoods, and will cause traffic congestion in the area. 6. Whether the Approval of the Proposed Planned Commercial Development Furthers Other Comprehensive Planning Program~ With respect to whether this proposal is supportive of the Comprehensive Plan programs, Mr. Annunziato stated this pro- perty is not supportive of the Comprehensive Plan programs, as noted in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, Exhibit H, for Areas 25 and 44. The Planning Department has deter- mined this application is neither supportive nor consistent with the proposals. Mr. deLong noted Mr. Annunziato indicated in his Future Comprehensive Land Use Plan or in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report that C-1 is contemplated for the front pro- perty. At the present time, Mr. Annunziato stated there is a 5% to 7% absorption rate for office buildings in the area. Mr. Annunziato clarified offices are not the only permitted use in the C-1 zoning classification, and there are various uses permitted. Chairman Trauger questioned the statement requiring an extra lane on Interstate 95. Mr. Annunziato explained the point would be covered in the next section. Mr. Pagliarulo noted that Mr. Annunziato referred to a tear of non-conforming lots which would be created on the northern boundary of this property, and asked if it is true from the staff comments and recommendations by the City Engineer, that all that property is subject to replatting - 17 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 under any condition of development. Mr. Annunziato explained the Planning Department recommends the property be replatted, but he did not know how you would accommodate the fact unless you abut a development adjacent to it. Mr. Pagliarulo believed you could not develop the property into configurations as it sits now because they are all non-conforming lots. In reply, Mr. Annunziato believed you can develop them if you combine lots, as some developers have done an the cities north of Boynton Beach. Mr. Pagliarulo believed the property would never be developed in its present state because from the indications he received from the City, they are requesting a replat in almost any instance of development in that area, and you would never end up with a situation of lots, as was pre- viously mentioned by Mr. Annunziato. RECOMMENDATION Mr. Annunziato stated it is impossible to make a definitive recommendation on this requested Amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Rezoning because there are four poten- tial outcomes which may occur. The first outcome involves approval by the courts and approval by the City Council. In this instance, it has been determined there are no land use conflicts created, and the applicant should be made to construct the improvements recommended in the Traffic Report, in addition to all staff recommendations. It is important to note the approval of this project pushes the intersection of Woolbright Road and Seacrest Boulevard into Level of Service E, and a total reconstruction of the bridge over the Interstate would be required in order to achieve eastbound, double left-turn lanes. Mr. Annunziato advised the second outcome would involve an approval by the courts and a denial by the City Council. In this instance, it would result in the creation of spot zones, which was discussed in the approval of the PUD several months ago, and land use conflicts. The third outcome would result in a denial by the courts and an approval by the City Council. In this instance, Mr. Annunziato explained the Council would be responsible, in part, for creating land use and zoning conflicts. - 18 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986- Mr. Annunziato explained the last outcome would result in the denial by both the courts and the City Council. In this instance, no land use or zoning conflicts are created. He stated it is very difficult to make a definitive recommen- dation without knowing what is going to occur north of this proposed development. However, Mr. Annunziato added, if this application was submitted without the cloud presented by the court action, the Planning Department's recommen- dation would be to deny the request. This recommendation would be based on the land: use conflicts created, inappropriate traffic estimating methodologies utilized, inconsistency with proposed land uses, as noted in the Evaluation and Appraisal Report and the increase in traffic generated~ ' Mr. Annunziato concluded, if it is the desire of the Board and City Council to approve this request, strict compliance with the comments made in the report and by the applicant's Traffic Engineer are recommended. Chairman Trauger requested Walter Keller, the City's con- sultant on the traffic, make a presentation before the Board. Walter Keller President of Walter H. Keller, Jr., Incorporated Consultant Engineering Planning Firm Coral Springs, Florida Mr. Keller advised he was retained by the City to do a review and analysis of the traffic study submitted as part of this approval process. In reference to the comments expressed by Mr. Annunziato and in alignment with the report he submitted which is part of the Board's package, he stated his main goal in reviewing the work was to establish whether the traffic study submitted by the applicant followed normal standardized techniques in preparing traffic impact studies. Additionally, he attempted to determine if the methodology was sound, reasonable, or did it have dif- ferences of opinion on certain items, and if the end result of the analysis was different if the assumptions were dif- ferent or found in error. Essentially, Mr. Keller did a trip generation analysis to determine whether the trip generated by the different components used proper trip - 19 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 rates. In general, he found they did, and the trip genera- tion phase of the report was reasonable. Mr. Keller noted he did find a few minor differences which were in the area of parks, where they use a higher generation rate for parks than what is normally used. In the area of internal and external generations, Mr. Keller stated the applicant made a statement that the project would retain 25% of the trips internal to the area. These were his mixed development trips. Mr. Keller did an analysis to determine if this was a reasonable conclusion. Because the different uses interrelated, he noted the basic idea of retaining trips is a sound and reasonable approach. The method used for determining whether these were reason- able was to look at the individual uses. Mr. Keller stated a standardized rate cannot be used in every instance. A means of analyzing this was to look at the different com- ponents of the project and attempt to determine which are trip productions and which are trip attractions. Primarily, in this area, the trip productions, considered internal be the residential units of the PUD to the north. This ~proximately 4,079 trips. Those are t ps whi be retained internally to the shop] Mr. Keller assumed for purpose of his an of those trips would be retained in the Likewise, he stated there were trips which between the proposed offices, the bank, and the shopping center. Mr. Keller advised his analysis determined that about 1,548 of the trips would be retained internally, and when you double it, because there are two ends to the trip, about 3,100 trips would stay within the development. He explained that is where the 18%, which was discussed earlier, came about. The applicant's use of a 25% rate is somewhat higher when you consider real uses. Mr. Keller noted he took the applicant's trip distribu- tion process, and did a separate analysis, using land use and economic data prepared by the County. He did his own graphic model trip distribution. What was determined by this analysis was the applicant's trip distribution used in his report was generally reasonable, although slightly higher percentages of trips were attracted to the southwest - 20- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 portion of the area. Mr. Keller believed these were minor differences, and on the overall basis, the distribution completed by the applicant was reasonable. Mr. Keller reviewed the background trip generation estimates completed by the applicant. He noted this was a rather complicated process in which several developments were iden- tified within the Woolbright Road corridor, and different estimates were made as to how many trips were to be produced by each of these projects and where the trips would go. He had several differences in this area. One was on the generation rates used for the office/warehouse projects. Mr. Keller stated the applicant utilized a trip rate which is generally used for strictly a warehouse project. In other words, many of the developments which are occurring in the general area are eitlher a pure office or a pure warehouse where it is a use which has some offices and some warehouses. It is not strictly a warehouse facility. From his experience, Mr. Keller determined, if it is a use that has many offices and it is not Simply a pure warehouse, the trip offices, but e additional offices are used primarily to operate the warehouse. Mr. Keller stated the question which was discussed was the occupancy rate for hotels. The applicant utilized the 70% occupancy rate for hotels. He stated this rate is low. Generally when doing a traffic impact study, you should not attempt to be overly conservative on your estimates and methodology. Generally for a more appropriate rate, Mr. Keller stated 815% would be a reasonable rate. Based on Mr. Keller's experience, 70% seemed lower than what should be used. In addition, Mr. Keller advised the applicant used mixed-use credit for many of the background projects, and also used it with a 25% rate. After reviewing the mix-use project, most of the projects were attractors, and not so much trip pro- ducers. Many of them did not have residential components, and were primarily non-residential uses. The use of a 25% rate, in that instance, was considered high, and he believed a more appropriate rate, based upon how these uses were put together, would be in the range of 10-15%. - 21 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. Keller's final comment to the City on the background traffic component concerned the Woolbright corridor. He stated if you consider the Woolbright corridor by itself, the applicant used a reasonable method of generating background traffic. He took the vacant parcels along Woolbright Road, generated trips for those, and applied them to the core. However, if the roadway is extended west of Congress Avenue, there will be some type of growth component attributed to traffic that is added because of that com- ponent, and that was not included in the report. Traffic Assignment and Intersection Capacity Level of Service Mr. Keller noted the final two areas of analysis are in the areas of traffic assignment and intersection capacity level of service. He stated, in the traffic assignment phase, he utilized a computer model and replicated the applicant's traffic assignment phase. This related the applicant's pro- cedure was sound and reasonable, and his assignment was correct based upon the assumptions he used in his report. Mr. Keller did discover in the traffic assignment phase, and considering the peak hour traffic generation rates of several of the projects, the applicant utilized some peak hour percentages which were considerably lower than the peak hour trip rates that should have been used. In the areas of office/business, Mr. Keller stated in offices less than 100,000 square feet in the M-1 uses there were significant differences. He noted the rates utilized by the applicant were not consistent with the more standardized handbook, "Institute of Transportation Engineers Report III Edition." Mr. Keller analyzed the results for the various intersec- tions. In general, there were differences of opinion throughout the report, but the end result of the differences was that the applicant's report and our differences were not substantially different that he would say the applicant's report should not be utilized. Mr. Keller did find that the intersection level surface for Seacrest Boulevard and Woolbright Road did go from the Level of Service D in the peak hour to the Level of Service E. This is primarily due - 22 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 to the Level of Service which was found in the applicant's report which was very close to Level of Service D. With the additional traffic generated by some of Mr. Keller's conclu- sions, that is what pushed it into the next level of ser- vice. This concluded Mr. Keller's presentation and analysis. Mr. Ryder stated Mr. Keller apparently found that the assumptions to a great degree agreed with Mr. Murray. He believed the bottom line is the traffic volume including the PUD and this proposal would double what would normally be expected if this area was otherwise developed. In other words, this would be an increase in trips from 6,000 trips to 12,000 trips. Mr. Keller clarified that he did not do an analysis on that item. He was not charged with working up a separate analysis on that item, and could not respond to Mr. Ryder's question. Mr. deLong questioned, besides pointing out the specific figures which were in the report, where the figures originated. Mr. Annunziato responded that when he mentioned that there were other findings prepared, what he did was to put the methodology in the Murray Report, and compared it with the different levels of development, and substituted the church figures for the 42 units, which should have been extracted, because Mr. Annunziato believed the church and school are going to be built whether this project is approved or disapproved. Mr. Annunziato noted instead of using 135,000 square feet for retail, he used 75,000 square feet. In addition, Mr. Annunziato used a lower generation rate for multi-family, 6.6% as opposed to 7%, and the equivalent generation rate for retail uses. When you do that and spread the numbers: across, Mr. Annunziato advised the existing land uses do not come up with the 8,000 trips initially reported, and would come up with 6 841 trips as opposed to 10,119 trips. ' ' In response to Mr. deLong's inquiry, Mr. Annunziato clarified the figure from 6-12 which shows the double impact was not the traffic engineer's findings, but were Mr. Annunziato,s findings. - 23- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 In response to Mr. Pagliarulo's inquiry as to obtaining a precise traffic report when there are four or five traffic engineers submitting a report, Mr. Keller believed if the consultants were selected very carefully you might get some different opinions. However, his purpose in this analysis was not to say he came up with 18.3% and the applicant had 25%. The purpose of the analysis was to determine whether it was reasonable. Mr. Keller believed in looking at the mixed-use percentage it must be based on the com- ponent of the individual uses. You cannot use a standard 25%. He stated the two most significant determinations that effected the Level of Service configuration were the peak hour percentages of a few of the traffic component, which Mr. Keller had previously mentioned in the last part of his report, and were off by a factor of 2. When taking those differences, and rates from the "Institute of Handbook", basicall t .s is what made the differe~ce~e adopted Mr. Keller n!oted he ~cant's traffic traffic as he went that data for Mr. ~oted he to keep level, so to ~ out minor In response to Mr. deLong's inquiry, Mr. Keller noted the difference from Level of Service D to Level of Service E was due to the fact that some of the peak hour percentages were at the lower level of that service. When adding additional traffic at the peak hours, it changed the con- sideration of the intersection. He believed that was the major reason the change in Level of Service occurred. Mr. deLong noted, in Mr. Keller's June 2, 1986 letter to Mr.. Annunziato, he indicated, after reviewing the varied analyses, the slight differences occurring did not substan- tially change the findings of the applicant's study. Mr. deLong verified with Mr. Keller that he was agreeing with the methodology, excluding a few percentages in dif- ferent areas, and stating the applicant's study was substan- tially correct. and after was reasonable, of his analysis. even ~es. Mr. deLong commented that somewhere he read about a bridge having to be restructured, if this development went in there. - 24 - MINUTES - PLANNING-AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. Keller clarified one of the items assumed in this report when preparing the report and letter was he did not go out and do a field inspection, and did not attempt to determine who was going to do the improvements. He basically assumed the information in the applicant's report was correct. If an item was identified as a future improve- ment, it would be taken care of. Mr. Keller noted Mr. Annunziato inquired about Interstate 95, and stated the applicant recommended in their analysis to make Interstate 95 eastbound with double lanes on the overpass. Mr. Keller looked at the overpass, and stated, at the pre- sent time, the overpass is one eastbound left and two through lanes. There is a distress lane painted on the south side of the bridge going to a double left con- figUration. If you wa~te~ to retain the distress lane, which is the safety factor, you would not be able to do so ss modify the b e. Mr. Keller could not at the prese :ime and from the inspection, if you the desi~ , did not have a distress lanel, and restriped the lanes for n arrower widths that you coulld get a double left lane. From the inspection, Mr. Keller determined, adequate ro lane la not be the e. Mr. A the ~ty Traffic turn lanes, there in order to make th Engineer suggested with the there was not unless you wa he distress Keller st ouble left you [lt that portion of r~marked, fr, conversation with 1t does nOt only involve the considerati~ be considered ~s work, County Traffic lng the bri Mrs. Huckle questioned if Mr. Annunziato assumed, from conversations with the engineers, that the uble left turn lanes are required based on a certain tion of trips generated in that direction, or is there a certain level at which they determine they need itwo lanes. Annunziato responded in the affirmative. Mrs. Huckle questioned whether the impact from this development would generate enough traffic to push the one ~ieft turn lane into two lanes. Mr. Annunziato stated it is the impact of all the developments. The result of this develo' is to increase the intensity of land:use and would cont ,Ute to the need to reconstruct a do~ble left.turn lane. Mr. Annunziato noted he did not have~sufflcient knowledge to state if this - 25 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 project was not approved that double left turns are not needed. He believed one of things which would push the double lanes would be to intensify land use at this loca- tion. Applicant's Representativ~ Martin Perry Representing the Applicant Mr. Perry stated since so much time has been spent on the issue of traffic, and since there were questions by Mr. Annunziato in his analysis of the traffic, as well as one particular item by Mr. Keller, he would like to commence by asking Mr. Murray to explain to the Board his responses to the items raised in the Staff Report and the issue in respect to the Level of Service at the intersection of Seacrest Boulevard and Woolbright Road. He will explain the issue relevant to the recommendation of the staff concerning the new bridge over Interstate 95, which he strongly disagrees with. Mr. Murray will also discuss the issue con- cerning the direction which was given by Mr. Annunziato to the applicant's traffic engineer as to what he had to con- sider in preparing the traffic impact analysis. Mr. Daniel Murray Traffic Engineer Consultant After listening to the traffic discussion, Mr. Murray stated he submitted a letter, dated June 12, 1986, to Mr. Levy, the developer, and would discuss some of the key items because he strongly believes there should be some clarification made on a few of the issues. Mr. Murray advised it was stated two or three times that he used a high trip rate for park uses. He wholeheartedly agreed the Institute of Transportation Engineers states five to six trips per acre for parks. However, each time he received a site plan from Mr. Kilday, it stated recreational uses, and included some passive and some to be identified. It is important to recognize that the social and recreational trips in the total trip purpose encompass about 20% of the total trip demand. There is the working trip and various other business trips. Looking at the site - 26- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUne 12, 1986 plan, Mr. Murray developed a reasonable trip rate. As it turned out, it is a minor amount of traffic. The recom- mended five to six trip rate definitely reduces trips. Therefore, it is insignificant, and Mr. Murray stated he will not discuss it further. Mr. Murray stated there has been a certain amount of discussion on the percentages of both multi-use trips and passing trips. He noted it was interesting to hear the additional comments regarding it. Mr. Murray had the oppor- tunity to attend a National Institute of Traffic Engineering Conference about two to three months ago. Two or three of the most paramount issues were the ones that are being discussed at this meeting. Mr. Murray had the opportunity to speak with a number of fellow traffic engineers throughout the nation, and many of them have done a number of evaluatiOns. He did see in the report there have been two studies of intensity conducted. The studies were con- ducted in Colorado and Wyoming and did factualize 25% as a reasonable rate. Another Study dealt with a strip type shoPping center, and in that study, the traffic engineers physiically counted traffic, and did an analysis on the actu!al trip rates, which came out 22 to 28%. Additionally, Mr. Murray has conducted studies on Glades Road, did some interviews and asked certain questions, but still came up with the same rate. Mr. Murray feels comfort- able in using 25%. In fact, he spoke to a very respected consultant firm, who has done extensive studies, and they have figures which are higher. Mr. Murray believes that issue, as one of the Planning and Zoning Board members indi- cated, is very flexible. To take 10% to 15% is being ex- tremely conservative. Mr. Murray feels 25% is a reasonable estimate. Going on further, Mr. Murray noted one very strong point which concerned the hotel occupancy rate of 70%. It was stated that 85% is a more realistic approach. He noted he is experiencing difficulty and foresees a contradiction. One time it is pointed out that Mr. Murray is not using local data, and the next time, when Mr. Murray uses local data, he is "nailed" again. Palm Beach County Planning Board puts out statistics. In 1984, statistics state that the average occupancy rate for hotels for the year is 69.5%. - 27 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Traffic impact studies are based on average traffic con- ditions. Mr. Murray stated they do not use only the months of February and March to prepare their traffic study. If he used the 85% figure for hotel occupancy during the month of February, it would be 87.1%. For the month of March, it was 87.6%. Those are the only two months that would exceed the 85% figure. Mr. Murray pointed out he strongly objected to that issue, and he believed it was a complete contradic- tion. He noted he wanted his statement included in the record. Mr. Murray stated it was pointed out the Woolbright Road extension was not used in his methodology. He wholehearted- ly agreed he set what he believed was the scope in tentative study. Besides taking into account the Woolbright Road extension, he did not take into account the new interchange which will be going in at the Florida Turnpike and Boynton Beach Boulevard. He did not take into account the N. W. 22nd Avenue interchange and Interstate-95. Mr. Murray did not take into account the Tri-County Rail which is in the works, and did not take into account all these analyses, because it was his understanding they established the methodology that was used. Mr. Murray indicated Woolbright Road and the other referenced interchanges are major transportation network changes. He contends once the interchange at N. W. 22nd Avenue is completed, people will exit at the Woolbright Road area, and will change the entire mix. Mr. Murray stated that is what he would call a "real comprehensive study" and the entire purpose of this study was to attempt to identify some of the key operational issues. He believed this was discussed previously, and never before had the issue of extending Woolbright and all the other ramifications been considered. Mr. Murray stated the intersection of Seacrest Boulevard and Woolbright Road was discussed as Level of Service E, based on the analysis completed by Mr. Keller. Mr. Murray did not have the opportunity of reviewing his detailed capacity analysis. However, he did refer to Table III, and asked the Board to review it. Mr. Murray noted this was a very impor- tant point he wanted everyone to understand. - 28 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. Murray directed the Board's attention to Table III, Woolbright Road and Seacrest Boulevard, wherein it pointed out Mr. Murray's analysis stated Level of Service D. He stated he had a critical volume of 1459, and the Level of Service is E, had a critical volume of 1300. Mr. Murray pointed out that cannot be. Mr. Murray referenced Circular 212, under Operations and Design Applications, wherein it gives the various levels of service. In this particular case, Level Service D goes all the way to a critical volume of 1460. Mr. Murray stated, if, an fact, the critical volume is 1300, that is operating definitely at C-D. Mr. Murray stated if there is a lower critical volume, the capacity is not worse. With respect to the 7.0 trip rate versus the 6.6 trip rate, Mr. Murray completed a number of analyses on this. Originally, he was going to use the 1981 Palm Beach County Trip Rate, which is 7.0. The Institute of Traffic Engineers is 6.6, and that is the one Mr. Murray used. He noted in the report the 7 should be 6.6. This would amount to an increase of 51 trips. Mr. Murray stated the third comment discussed noted the trip rates were different for the two commercial. One was 66.7 and the other was 62. He noted that was correct. Mr. Murray advised he went to a course in San Francisco which specifically dealt with the trip rate analysis, and noted there is certain variability. In regard to the last item discussed, Mr. Murray noted these figures concerning the amount of square footage of shopping area that would and would not be allowed. He noted Mr. Kilday would respond to that specific issue because it concerned a land-planning function. Mr. Murray commented with the less square footage, trip rates will go down, but noted they will not go down uniformly. There will be a higher trip rate. As an example, he stated if you look at the 74,000 square feet, the trip rate would be 81, as com- pared to 62 or 67. Another point Mr. Murray wanted to clarify was the eval- uation of the before-land use versus the after-land use. - 29 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 He directed the Board's attention to Page 10 of Mr. Annunziato's comment in order to point out a particular issue and make it clearer for the record. Mr. Murray referenced the top of the page where there are two figures - 6,841, as opposed to 10,119. He noted when you go and do some additional things, 6,841 is maintained, but the other figure is increased to 12,816, which is not correct. When reviewing Mr. Murray's report on Page 7, Mr. Murray stated 10,119 were new external trips. The figure of 12,816 was arrived at by including the passing trips. In this comparison, no passing trips were added in the before-land use. The same nUmber cannot exist twice around, and is an inconsistency. Mr. Murray pointed out the 10,000 figure would be another 3,400. With respect to the bridge issue and the double left lane, Mr. Murray stated the amount of traffic this particular pro- ject would generate is minor. There is the possibility of widening the bridge and accommodating a double left lane sometime downstream, and it is a situation wherein as traf- fic increases it becomes an operational improvement. The predominant impact would initiate from the Boynton Beach Commercial Center. Mr. Murray stated it is another opera- tional aspect to review. The main recommendation Mr. Murray made for this developer was to definitely develop a double left lane going to the northbound off ramp to proceed west, and stated this would be a very important aspect of this project. Mr. deLong asked Mr. Murray's opinion as a traffic engineer, whether this project would impact traffic in that area to such a degree the City would have to consider almost imme- diately restructuring the bridge. Essentially, what is being stated is the same problem being faced in growing Boynton Beach and almost anywhere in which bridges will need to be reStructured. Mr. Murray commented he raised some traffic operational issues, and believed this project is undertaking a substantial number of major improvements. Of course, this project is not solving all the world's problems, and this is not the intent. There is a good possibility with the opening of the N. W. 22nd Avenue interchange, a few significant changing patterns would be created Which could change the "ball game" completely. - 30- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Chairman Trauger noted it would be at least ten years before the interchange is completed, and questioned what happens to the bridge in between this time with traffic generating from this project and other developments. Mr. Murray recommended the double left lane going northbound should be implemented in conjunction with this project. The predominant move that will help is having a double left lane coming northbound and proceed to go westbound. In response to Mrs. Huckle's inquiry, Mr. Murray noted on Page 28 of the traffic report, he stated since the Interstate-95 northbound off ramp signalized intersection will be substantially impacted by the surrounding develop- ment, it is recommended that this project construct a second northbound ramp, left turn lane, in order that traffic pro- ceeding west on Woolbright Road will have reduced delays, and the signalized intersection will have more green time on Woolbright Road. There are a number of other comments that could be suggested, including a number of positive improve- ments at S. W. 8th Street. He recommended providing signa- lization at S. W. 8th Street and tying in the signal between those intersections and Interstate 95. Mrs. Huckle questioned if the double left lane, northbound going west, would not change the impact onto the S. W. 8th Street interchange, coming out of the project onto Woolbright Road. Mr. Murray clarified where Pylon Park and this project come together, there will be a signal. He suggested the signals be coordinated. Mr. Murray explained a double lane enhances rather than restricts. For example, with a single lane, there could be a line of 5 to 10 cars, and if you give yourself a double lane, you will have a mix. It may not be equal, and there may be 8 and 6 cars. However, it moves the traffic through more quickly, and the traffic moves as a whole unit rather than a whole string. This is advantageous as long as.the roadway has two lanes. He noted Woolbright Road is a four-lane roadway, and it will serve very well. When there is a single lane of traffic, you will have your conservative ~and aggressive driver mixed in. When you start turning in a single formation and you execute the turn, you now have Woolbright Road which is the four-lane divided highway. You have the aggressive driver starting to pass. In simple traffic flow ~erms, Mr. Murray stated you have more dynamic interaction with the single - 31- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 lane than with the two-lane feed. The double left lane is highly superior from every aspect, and will allow better operation of the signal. For the purpose of this meeting, Mr. Perry requested the minutes of the previous meetings of the Planning and Zoning Board for August 13, 1985, and March 11, 1986, and the City Council meetings of August 20, 1985 and March 18, 1986, be included. He noted at these meetings, various aspects were brought up on the projects. Mr. Vance advised the Board members the applicant does not have the right to incorporate minutes of any prior meeting. However, Mr. Vance stated Mr. Perry can make any presentation he desires. Mr. Perry advised when he came before the Board in August, 1985, he brought forth three plans. At that time, Mr. Perry did not have a Planned Commercial Development ordinance, and as a result, he was required to break down his zoning into the various components. Two components concerned the rezoning to various commercial entities. Mr. Perry came in with the knowledge that something had to be done with S. W. 8th Street because it was on the Comprehensive Plan. He used that as a dividing line and requested C-3 zoning to the area east on the plan to allow for a shopping center under 37,000 square feet. On the west side of the property, Mr. Perry requested C-1 zoning, and the C-1 zoning along that side was between S. W. 8th Street and the canal area. He is requesting 62,000 square feet. The reason for this separation of C-1 and C-3 was that Mr. Perry had taken a look at the land use patterns to the south of the site, and basically there is C-1 to the south, C-1 to the north, C-3 to the south, and matched that to the north. The Comprehensive Plan indicated these uses were compatible, and it could be properly buffered from similar uses existing to the west. To the north of the site there is a plan for that area. ' After the Planning and Zoning Board meeting held on August 13, 1985, Mr. Perry noted there were several concerns - 32 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 expressed by both staff and members of the Board. With regard to the C-1 zoning, the staff had specific concerns with the two-story buildings and the potential conflicts with the residential property located to the north and to the west of the site. While Mr. Perry was showing only 62,000 square feet, the staff expressed if C-1 zoning was approved it is a "carte blanche" and the developer is entitled to as many feet as could be put on it. Mr. Perry stated~these were pla:ns the applicant in good faith wanted to present to the Board. However., without the mechanism such as the PCD ordinance, the Board could not guarantee it. Likewise, Mr. Perry stated on the C-3 area, there was an indication the applicant could go up to four-stories on that particular zoning district. WithOut those proper safe- guards, there ~ stressed by the Planning and Zoning!Board an City Council. The reason the applicant is back before the Board is he had waisted for the Planned COmmercial Ordi t.o be approved, and then he filed the PUD as a PCD. would have come up after March, 1986, at the the PUD came upi, but because of the interim Ln management roll back, the appli- can' could ~te ~as a local pl~ stated thl s why there is a appr HOwever, in order to match to ti renu 'ements of the State, it was done in Mr. Per.ry advised the plan before the Board, as explained to Mr. Annunziato, is in essence the same plan the Board reviewed before. However, it does have certain safeguards to it that can be locked in along with any other proper con- ditionswhich might be required. With regard to the area that was originally shown as C-l, the applicant has further redUced it. It was mentioned in the report that these were two-story buildings. In the new plan, Mr. Pierry stated the total square footage of this area was reduce~d from 62,000 to 38,000 square feet. This reduction was made. in order to lower all buildings to single-story buildingls, and there are no two-s buildings. It was also done in response to s that there was too much professional office space the market, and it was not needed in the area. Mr. Perry advised it has been redUced at this point to allow for a less intense professional off~ce use. - 33 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 The area between the railroad tracks and S. W. 8th Street should be treated as single-land use, and is the first part of his request. Mr. Perry noted in the report, distributed to the Board, is Scenarios 1 and 2. He suggested the Board consider Scenario 3. Scenario 3 is the final location of an industrial collector road, which will serve the same industrial property, immediately to the east. The location of this service road determines the area that will get the commercial zoning. Mr. Perry recalled at the first meeting, the applicant was vehement in not providing the industrial road, and as time went by, the applicant has changed his viewpoint. Mr. Perry stated the proposed plan is laid out with the specific intent that the 80 foot industrial road will be an industrial access road which will determine the differentiation between land uses - commercial to the south and residential to the north. He noted it was not mentioned in the report, although it will be considered as the next item. Mr. Perry believed it is a critical item because many of the compatibility issues that were raised at this meeting are not going to be a question of the development's com- patibility with residential zoning in Scenario 1 or the existing zoning in Scenario 2. It is going to be com- patibility with industrial roads. One thing for certain, it will be a heavy duty, industrial road because it will be servicing Four Steel which is a major construction steel storage area. In reviewing land use compatibility, Mr. Perry advised it needs to be addressed. Mr. Perry displayed on the screen an overlay of the site. He stated the overlay represents the various options which exist in terms of the future of the industrial road. Mr. Perry described on the overlay three choices of access roads that could be used. Mr. Murray offered as part of his presentation a letter written to Tradewinds Development from Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., dated June 6, 1986. In part, it stated as follows: "In response to our meeting this past Monday we have reviewed our files and the current pro- posed site plan to determine and reiterate our verbal comment on the following issues: - 34 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 The alignment of the 'industrial access road' and The lOcation of the industrial access road and its alignment across the site is relatively fixed due to the following factors. First, SW 8th Street is fixed in two locations, its inter- section with Woolbright Road on the south being most appropriately placed directly opposite the existing Industrial Park access to the south, and its northern point within the site relatively fixed at the existing right-of-way along the north property boundary. The eastern edge of the industrial access road is fixed by the acceptable crossing point over the railroad. This point is approximately 1,000 feet north of Woolbright Road, and is determined by rigid guidelines set by the American Association of State Highway Officials and the Railroad itself. Because the railroad has a curve in this area, the access raod must be pushed to a location at which it can cross a tangent section. Given these fixed points and the distance between 8th Street and the east property line, there is effectively little alternative to a straight tangent section for the entire length of the industrial access road. Considering the speed for which the industrial access road would be required to be designed for (minimum 30 mph) there is little opportunity to provide any form of curvat this roadway while main- taining perpendicular angle of intersect~ h 8th Street. Further, considering standard thoroughfare planning practice the industrial access road becomes in effect a collector for land-uses east of the railroad to be carried to Woolbright Road. Given this characteristic, and the hierarchy of roadway classifications, the distance from Woolbright Road to the access road should allow for a minimum of 1,000 feet between the roads (desirably 1,300 ft). This would - 35- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 allow for sufficient distance between the road- way to allow intermediate land uses driveway openings in between the two roadways, thus reducing the need for access along Woolbright. The general rule of thumb when considering the creation of Collector roads between arterials is that they should be spaced 1,000 to 1,300 apart and should allow for the reasonable assembly of property in between them to develop unified land plans. ..... Peter Flotz Director of Traffic Planning Services Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc." Referring to Scenario 3, Mr. Perry requested to review the issues which were earlier discussed with regard to the staff recommendations. He stated, in addition to the Comprehensive Plan policies listed, there are two other issues noted: Discourage expansion of strip commercial development, wherein the C-2 zoning currently could be developed as a strip commercial development. Encourage the development of clustered neighborhoods, community centers and arterial collector intersec- tions, which is the case at S. W. 8th Street and Woolbright Road. With regard to the issues and discussions concerning Item 1, whether the property can be developed under its existing zoning, Mr. Perry stated it probably can be developed under existing zoning. In fact, it goes on to say, the housing activity that could occur behind the C-2 zoning probably will occur. Mr. Perry stated he would go along with that statement. He noted Item 2 agreed with the applicant, and he would go along with that statement. With regard to Item 3, whether the proposed PCD would be compatible with existing residential uses, Mr. Perry stated this is where he has a problem. He noted he accepted Item Number 1 which is retail commercial abutting single-family - 36- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 residential. Item 3 states retail commercial cannot abut single-family residential without significant deterioration. He stated if Item 3 is acceptable in this case, and is the same relationship of residential to commercial, we should say Item 1 has the same objectionable nature to it. In fact, under the PCD there is an issue that is included under Item 1. Under the PCD zoning, there are existing rules, including the green spaces and buffer areas, as well as any other conditions placed on it to make sure the deve- loper does not conflict with northerly land uses. In regard to Item Number 3, it states "If you have not conformed in lots created.." Mr. Perry stated it has always been the intent and Willingness of the developer to provide the 80 f~eet necessary for the collector road for this project. M!r. Perry stated that could be a for tlhe PCD. Providing for the road, non- conforming lots would become part of the futulre right-of- way, Therefore, there would no longer be a problem existing. With regard to Item Number 2, as far as noise, odor, and fumes, Mr. Perry stated that could exist under Item Number 1. Under Item 2, Mr. Perry suggested the item which would cause the greatest potential harm will be the 80 foot industrial road with Four Steel trucks going back and forth on that road. Between the 80 foot road, there will be a mandatory landscape buffer and setbacks for the shopping center. The residential property is going to be effected more by the industrial collector to the north, than the back of the shopping center, which is south of the road. With regard to Item 4, Mr. Perry noted the proposed PCD standards meet the regulations to the zoning. With regard to traffic going to the north, Mr. Perry stated S. W. 8th Street has been set up by the City to provide a connection between Woolbright Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard. Whether this develops ~omme~cially as a shopping center or as an office park, it is going to continue to get traffic use. Once people know the road is there, and someday it will be there, it is going to get used by the people. Mr. Perry believed from that standpoint, it cannot be sta- ted that the traffic is going to be dumped to the north. He stated traffic will be there anyway, and while access is provided to the industrial area, nothing will prevent the - 37- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 industrial access from heading straight north to Boynton Beach Boulevard and across Ocean Avenue in the future. With regard to Item 5, whether the approval of proposed Planned Commercial Development furthers the intent and the purpose of the policies of future land use, Mr. Kilday believed it does in terms of Scenario 3, regarding a major intersection with an industrial collector road to the north, which the developer is providing. Mr. Kilday believes with the developer coming in as a PCD, which now allows the safe- guards which were denied earlier, it can be done compatible with the surrounding residential and commercial areas. With regard to Item 6, whether the approval of proposed planned commercial development furthers other Comprehensive planning programs, Mr. Kilday stated the other potential items haVe not been approved yet, and he did not think Item Number 6 could be considered at this meeting. He pointed out the other plan does call for profesSional office use on the entire site in the future. In the minutes of the August 13, 1985, Planning and Zoning Board, it speaks repeatedly to a "flood" of office space.within the area. In fact, his market analysis agrees with that in terms of office space. Considering the pecularities in this pro- perty, Mr. Kilday stated this PCD can prove, with proper protection, to be beneficial to.the City of Boynton Beach. simi- lar ng center to what the developer is proposing. Mr. an alternative of making everyone ~he it will be a benefit to the residents in this area. Mrs. Huckle questioned if the PCD ordinance allows the uses allowable in the C-3 zone. Mr. Ryder clarified all the per- missive uses in the C-3 are included in the PCD, as well as other uses that might be designated by the Board or Council. Regarding the issue of compatibility, Mr. Annunziato stated there is no question the C-2 can be developed to approxi- mately 700,000 square feeto When comparing the scale of development and uses within the C-2 zone versus the C-3 zone, the opportunity for greater conflict exists. - 38 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Concerning the 80 foot collector road, Mr. Annunziato stated it has been identified as a heavy industrial road. This road will accommodate about 1,500 trips per day at buildout from the industrial area, and 10% to 20% would be trucks. Mr. Annunziato advised the situation existing now is the trucks are passing through a residential area with houses on both sides. The collector road does afford some protection to residential neighborhoods, since it is a wider right-of- way, wider pavement, and does not go through a residential area. It is an industrial road, and it probably will end up demarcating land uses. He noted it must be examined in terms of a much bigger picture. In regard to the road, Mr. deLong noted the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. He stated it is logical to assume the straight-line road proposed by the applicant would be more economical and less dangerous than the S-shape the Planning Department proposed closer to Woolbright Road. Mr. Annunziato stated the question whether it is more logical to create more of an area for intensive development south of this road, thereby increasing intensity in the area, than to have a road that potentially decreases the intensity. He stated C-1 office/professional/commercial category provides for other than office uses. In the long run, it might be an important and reasonable land use for that property because of its location, as opposed to other locations that may not be as reasonably located. Discussion continued on the zoning classifications and zoning regulations. Mr. Kilday directed the Board's attention to the overlay displayed on the screen, and to the area south of Pylon Park. According to the Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 1986, Technical Report, Page 110, Section 3.3.5.9, Area IX, Area Bounded by Seacoast Railroad, E-4 Canal, Woolbright Road, and Golf Road, and due to the incredible similarities of the two pieces of property in terms of their location and relationship to Woolbright Road, Interstate 95, the railroad, the E-4 Canal - 39 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 and Leisureville, Mr. Kilday wanted to report the language in the report which reads as follows: "Although presently zoned for low density single-family development, this area repre- sents the most desirable location in the City for commercial and industrial develop- ment. The objection of nearby residents is that such development may be environmentally incompatible with their neighborhood; however, is not an unreasonable concern. Without proper controls and development guidelines, industrial can result in an undesirable neigbor for a low-maintained, low density residential area. However, with proper safe plan review essential to the Planned Industrial District concept, more landscape built-in space would be made available along the E-4, than would be available if residential development occurred on small single-family lots. It is therefore recommended that a Pianned IndUstrial Development be encouraged in this area, subject to special requirements for a landscaped buffer along the E-4 Canal. In addition, land permitting on Woolbright Road should be rezoned to permit the devel- opment of neighboring commercial uses. The Boynton Commerce Center Planned Industrial Development has been constructed at this location, and Pylon Plaza, a commer- cial development, will be constructed on the Woolbright Road frontage. Vegetative screening along the E-4 Canal should be increased consistent with Woolbright Road, consistent with the improved development plans for Boynton Commerce Center. Land uses along Woolbright Road include office development adjacent to the E-4 Canal and should include community commercial uses between the entrance and the SCL tracks." - 40- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. Perry stated what was described is the same project as what is being proposed. In addition, Mr. Perry read to the Board part of the staff report. It stated the staff's findings, in respect to the market analysis submitted by the applicant, were that it supported C-3 zoning on the parcel. However, it had a much weaker conclusion with respect to the demand for the C-1 zoning, since there is somewhat of a "glut" of office buildings in the area. The Staff also determined commercial zoning at this location would meet the City's Comprehensive Plan criteria, since it is in the proximity of two major intersections - Interstate-95 and Woolbright Road. It was also determined came from the Staff Report of August 13, submission, which was not a PCD. on the initial As far as their findings in respect to compatibility, Mr. Cannon stated C-1 zoning would be compatible with the proposed C-3 zoning. C-3 zoning on the 18 acres in the center would not create a land use conflict if it were to be developed as a one or two story shopping center. However, Mr. Cannon had stated the staff felt there could be a poten- tial conflict if it were developed into a four-story commer- cial center. Mr. Perry stated he does not promote or propose three or four stories, and is referring to a one- story or two-story shopping center. Mr. Cannon continued in the report the market for the C-1 uses would be weak and unacceptable, and the Planning Department determined this to be an argument against the C-1 zoning. Mr. Perry believed the market analysis, supplied by the applicant, was valid and the C-3 zoning could be built out without adversely effecting the other shopping centers in the City. Mr. Perry suggested that people's intelligence and sensibilities have been played with, and noted there was nothing different at this meeting from what stood out at the August 13, 1985 meeting. Mr. Perry advised there are two reports that are substan- tially different. There is a report that states there is an extremely strong market for retail commercial, but a five to eight year buildout for C-1. He noted the staff is now - 41 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 saying, in an effort to make their report clearer, there could be hospitals, etc. Mr. Perry commented that state- ment was not included in the report. He believed the City created a situation by demanding a road to which Mr. Perry originally objected and is now agreeing to. He stated the City does not prefer the boundary the way the road sets it and believes it is unsafe at a different curvature, and will move the boundary. Mr. Perry emphasized something was 'wrong and unfair. He asked the Board to consider what has been previously stated and not get caught in a situation in which they join in the unfairness. Mr. Perry offered a letter from Land Research Marketing, dated ~June 10, 1986, concerning the amount of office space available, and a statement from Barton-Aschman Associates that addresses the unsafeness of the proposed curved railroad access road, and the fact, as C-l, this area would generate more traffic than from retail use. Chairman Trauger asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak iin favor of the subject proposal. Raymond Royce Attorney with Scott, Royce, Harris, and Bryant 450 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida Mr. Royce stated he was appearing before the Board on behalf of the First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach. The Church had asked Mr. Royce to advise them and offer assistance because the approval of the Planned Community District is very important to the future plans of the Church. Mr. Royce explained the Church presently has about 650 members. Until recently, it has been necessary for the Church to conduct two services a day in order to accommodate the parishioners. The property, which the Church owns in this particular location, could be used to expand their Church to accommodate about 700 seats and ultimately 1200 seats, and to expand their school operation. Thereby, the Church could appropriately accommodate their growing congre- gation. Mr. Royce advised the Church supports this peti- tion, and urges the Board's approval of it. - 42 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. Royce advised he does much zoning work, but when cri- tiquing the issues discussed, he found it difficult not to agree or to criticize with everything that has been discussed. Mr. Royce stated the subject piece of property is well buffered. The uses proposed can be well controlled through the PCD ordinances, as opposed to being developed without those controls under straight zoning. He pointed out the property is owned by the same developer who can control what happens there. An opportunity and advantage exists to have the developer and the Church put this property together so that it can be controlled, and conflicting issues will not exist. He noted the property is well buffered on the west by the E-4 Canal. Mr. Royce stated he had worked on many zoning cases where office/commercial has been across from single-family residential. With appropriate setbacks, landscaping and the width of the canal, a natural buffer exists. He continued the property is buffered on the south by the wide Woolbright Road and by the existence of similar uses in that particular area. The property is buffered on the east by Interstate-95 and the railroad tracks and the industrial area. In determining the negative impacts, Mr. Royce stated it seemed Mr. Annunziato had to strain to create some non- conforming lots in the area, and believed that issue was well discussed. After reviewing the report, Mr. Royce noted everyone agrees it meets most of the PCD standards. There are no environ- mental problems, and it satisfies the economic standards. It has been repeatedly stated, if office buildings are built in that area, it could result in empty buildings and a more difficult situation existing. After listening to the statements from the Traffic Engineers, Mr. Royce stated the roadway capacity difference is not significant, and there could be some peak hour changes. He understood the double left lane would be on a ramp which would help the exiting traffic on Interstate-95 and would not require reconstruction of the bridge, but would improve the traffic flow. - 43- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. Royce pointed out the location of the Church property on the map displayed on the screen. He explained how the road would bisect the Church property. In the Comprehensive Plan for the 8th Street continuation, the Church property would be divided into three pieces. He stated with that con- figuration, the Church could not utilize the property, and could not develop a Church school and Church divided by a major industrial road. If the PCD or PUD situation could be worked out, the ChurCh could reconfigure the property to a certain area, provide good buffering for the residential areas to the west, and avoid the industrial property for Church and Church school purposes. With the existing con- figuration, tremendous problems will exist for the Church. Since this property could be properly controlled through a PCD, Mr. Royce concluded he would encourage the Board to approve the~projeCt, as presented to the Board. If you weigh the evidence and review the controls existing through the PCD process, Mr. Royce believed the prepon- derance of the ewidence dictates the City ~of Boynton Beach will have the most control over the development if the PCD method is utilized. Mr. Ryder noted the impact on the established neighboring areas had not been discussed. Mr. Royce stated he did not feel there is a negative impact on the neighboring areas. If the property was developed in a straight zoning capacity, without the controls exercised through the PCD process, a greater impact would be created. An opportunity exists through this application to exercise greater control and protect the neighborhood. By allowing this PCD development, it i!s ensured that S. W. 8th Street will continue along the pt ~sed ali, rather than being shifted to the western bol of o! ,. There will be tremendous roadway pro! and c problems created, if everyone does not work together in determining a way of working out a PUD or PiCD, or some type of control, to provide the necessary protlection. Since the Church property has been split in two or three pieces, Chairman Trauger questioned how the Church would get its property back together. Mr. Royce stated the PCD plan would u%ilize, part of the Church property in connection with PCD, and in exchange, the Church could put its property in - 44 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 one piece. If PCD is denied, and a curving road is built, the Church property will be trisected into three pieces. the plan is approved in accordance with Mr. Kilday's request, the City allows the Church to work it out so that part of the property can be buffered on the west by Church property, and avoid having the Church property destroyed. Gary Nolan 604 S. W. 3rd Avenue Lake Boynton Estates Boynton Beach, Florida If Mr. Nolan verified the Bass Creek Homes would be torn down if the project is approved. He stated he lived on the north side of the project, and the Bass Creek Homes are housing bums who walk on the road by the side of his house, and go out to the woods. He noted he did not want these type of people in his residential area. Houses along 4th Avenue haVe been broken into because of the woods on the south side. Mr. Nolan is in favor of approving the shopping center and getting the area built up, and thereby, removing these type of people from his residential area. Chairman Trauger asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition. Wilbur Lynch President of the Boynton Leisureville Community Association 1912 S. W. 16th Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida Mr. Lynch stated he was present at the meeting to voice the opposition of the Board of Directors and the residents of Boynton Leisureville to the development project proposed on the north side of Woolbright Road. He feels the density is too great and the traffic problems it would create are not conducive to the life style enjoyed in Leisureville for the past eleven years. Mr. Lynch asked the Planning and Zoning Board to vote "no" on this project and help maintain that area of Boynton~Beach as it is. - 45 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 In response to Mr. deLong's inquiry, Mr. Lynch stated he was President of Boynton Leisureville, which is on the southwest side of Woolbright Road, opposite Boynton Beach Leisureville on the other side of the street. Joseph Armellina 811 S. W. 6th Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida Mr. Armellina stated he was representing himself and the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Leisurville and the surrounding areas. He advised a zoning application was again being addressed, which directly impacted on the referenced citizens, at a time when over 40% of the resident owners are away for the summer and are unable to be heard. He believed that while Trade Winds Development has a case pending against the City of Boynton Beach, these two appli- cations are out of order. However, since they are to be heard tonight, he believed they should be denied, since it is a project that will increase the "glut" of office space in Boynton Beach and the County. Additionally, it will increase the retail space, which at present is overstocked and tenants cannot be found to occupy the vacancies existing. He stated there are not enough shoppers to sustain the existing retailers, located in the Promenade, the Mall, and the neighboring shopping centers in Boynton Beach. Mr. Armellina advised the complaints of the residents con- cernled the office impact and noise level being multiplied many~ times over with the approval of the two applications being presented at this meeting. Mr. Armellina stated the approved commercial developments in Boynton Beach are evidence the City needs to manage its space to a greater extent for the people who have paid taxes in the past, and who have helped build a City for the resi- dents to live. Many of these residents are the reasons why the banks in Boynton Beach have survived and grown, and why new banks are coming in. If this should be made a future slum area "sandwiched be- tween the commercial areas that developers want to dump" on the City, Mr. Armellina believed both applications should be - 46- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 denied, and recommendations of the State reviewed in order to reduce the density on presently committed developments for homes, apartments, condominiums and commercial proper- ties. He suggested reducing the impacts on all services and roads, and allowing the life style, presently enjoyed by Floridians, to be available to future residents of the City of Boynton Beach. Gary Lehnertz 619 S. W. 2nd Avenue Lake Boynton Estates Boynton Beach, Florida Mr. Lehnertz urged the Board to disapprove the proposed rezoning request. He stated it appears, based on the pre- sentations, t~hat the major reason for the proposal is to allow for a liarge retail store establishment. Mr. Lehnertz stated the retail store facilities are not required in this area, and would duplicate what already exists on Congress Avenue, Boynton Beach Boulevard, and in the Mall. Mr. Lehnertz noted there would be a significant increase in traffic generated. The extensive retail store space would definitely have a negative impact on the single-family homes directly to the north of this area. Considering commercial development space is booming, not only in this area but throughout the City, Mr. Lehnertz believed additional resi- dential space should not be converted to commercial usage. He stated Boynton Beach should continue to be developed as a comfortable suburban City. Concerning the many issues discussed on the proposed road, Mr. Lehnertz realized much of this issue will be discussed in the next proposal. He heard one item he felt the Board should consider. One of the reasons why the proposed road would be placed outside of the expanded commercial area is because the traffic would have a minimum speed of 30 miles per hour. Considering this road is either going to abut or traverse residential areas, the maximum speed should be 25 miles per hour. When considering it will be a short road being travelled by heavy industrial trucks, he could not imagine how a steel truck would get up to 25 miles per hour - 47- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 before it slows back down again to get on to Woolbright Road or into the industrial area. Mr. Lehnertz concluded it seems by leaving this area at its present zoning and not expanding it into the residential portion is by far the best thing to do for the City and the surrounding area. Mr. deLong commented a portion of the proposed property is presently zoned commercial. In response to Mr. deLong's inquiry, Mr. Lehnertz stated his house is located about five or six blocks from the Gateway Shopping Center, which is a group of stores which was recently developed on Boynton Beach Boulevard. His home is located about eight to ten bloCks from this proposed project. Ben Uleck S. W. 17th Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida Mr. Uleck made note to two quotations from Joe deLong. Mr. deLong always stated, "ask the people what they want." and "we have very few R-lA zoning parcels left, let us keep them that way." Mr. Uleck stated the residents of Boynton Beach elected the Council members to represent them. The Council members appointed the members on the Planning and Zoning Board to represent them. He asked the Board to give the residents their choices and not the Board's choices. Chairman Trauger stated he had two letters to read into the record before closing the PUBLIC HEARING. The letters are as follows: "June 11, 1986 We would appreCiate your refusing to change the zoning on the Woolbright project. If anything it should be made more restrictive--- especially the commercial area directly off of Woolbright Road. We certainly do not need any small shopping centers as proposed and this area would be - 48 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 well changed from C-2 to C-i, which we believe to be more restrictive. Thank you, Leonard A. Molitor Margaret E. Molitor Both residing at: 906 S. W. 15th Street Boynton Beach, FL. 33435" The second letter read as follows: "June 8, 1986 Gentlemen: So many of us in Leisureville have retired to Boynton Beach because it was a 'retirement, area and the prospects of it becoming a nice place to live appealed to all of us. I know we must give way to the future prospects of new buildings, but the plans as being presented by Tradewinds will certainly do nothing except to bring in on Woolbright Avenue terrific traffic jams and parking problems. Do we need to destroy our Leisureville atmosphere for the sake of a developer who when the project has been completed will move along to their next, leaving us, the current residents of Leisureville and Boynton Beach to suffer and live with their whims? I beg of you Zone members to consider leaving the Zoning classification as it presently is and let us live in harmony with the present zoning plans. Sincerely, Fred & Viola Ebeling 1304 S.W. 15th Street Boynton Beach, Florida" - 49- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 There being no further comments, Chairman Trauger declared the PUBLIC HEARING closed. Mr. Ryder stated presented at this meeting was another attempt to change the present zoning which will result in a devastating impact on the surrounding residential develop- ments, accompanied by substantial increases in traffic volume. Mr. Ryder advised the area involved, which consists of 28 acres, includes the frontage on Woolbright Road, which is zoned C-2, Local Retail, and encompasses a residential area zoned for residential purposes. The request for rezoning to PCD will permit all commercial uses, included in an all encompassing category of C-3 Community Commercial District. The proposed development contemplates the development of 211,000 square feet of varied commercial uses. To seriously consider such a zoning change, Mr. Ryder stated it might be expected there is an urgent general need. However, he stated nothing could be farther from the truth. Comprehensive reports reveal that developments are building beyond what the market can absorb. This is evident in Broward County and in Palm Beach County. At the present time, Mr. Ryder advised there are at least twenty shopping centers, most of them located west of Interstate-95, totalling over 1,000,0~0 square feet in space. He noted they do not include the two centers on Congress Avenue and Hypoluxo Road. Mr. Ryder stated, at the previous Tuesday night Board meeting, a proposed shopping center, called the Boynton Square Shopping Center, came before the Board for approval. He noted this center is located in an appropriately zoned area on Congress Avenue, between Boynton Beach Boulevard and Old Boynton Road, on the east side of Congress Avenue. The retail activities, in this instance, will total 169,000 square feet, and is not far away from the subject project. Mr. Ryder added, since the Boynton Square Shopping Center is located in the proper area, presumably there will be no problem with approving that development. In addition, he stated this proposal meets the long-standing policy of locating developments of this type at intersections of major arterial roads rather than having something resolved in strip zoning. - 50 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. Ryder reported the Planning Director's analysis cites the negative impact which will result if the proposed com- mercial development was approved. He noted the rear of the proposed shopping center would interface with future single-family homes. Reference was made to one of the PCD stipulations to the following effect .that a PCD should be located where access to major roadways is afforded, and where traffic generated in residential areas will be accept- able. This PCD fails with respect to a level of traffic generated in the residential area to the north. Mr. Ryder commented there is much discussion on the traffic counts, and the final result is, if the City approves the PUD, there will be twice as much traffic than ~th~wise anticipated. Furthermore, Mr. Ryder stated the staff report determined this request is not supportive of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The project at this location will detract from the living environment of the area to the north. This would result in land use incompatibility along its northern border, would not encourage the preser- vation of single-family neighborhoods, and will cause traf- fic congestion in the area. Mr. Ryder advised the current evaluation of the Comprehensive Report determines it would be more appropriate to limit the land use of the C-2 area, in question, solely to office and professional use, in which instance, the traf- fic volumes vary considerably. In conclusion, Mr. Ryder stated the staff reports determined it was impossible to make a definitive recommendation because of the various implications ensuing as a result of the pending litigation. In view of the negative impact, the inconsistencies, and the uncertainties, Mr. Ryder believed this request should be denied. Based on what was discussed at the meeting, what he has seen of the area, and some of the inconsistencies in the Staff Report, Mr. deLong commented the issue concerns a PCD, which gives the City control over the property. He noted the City would not have this control if it was kept at its present zoning, or if it was zoned C-1. Mr. deLong commented the people of Leisureville should review this proposed zoning and understand what the PCD and PUD controls offer, as far - 51 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 as the City having the ability to control the possible nega- tive impacts, such as the noise impact. In his opinion, it would be a mistake to disapprove the project since it is known the front piece will probably go commercial. When considering the back of the property with the housing por- tion, it should be Planned Unit Development in order that the City can control with one developer what goes on there rather than have a "piece meal, architectural abortion" with 50 or 60 builders purchasing and developing parCels of land. Mrs. Huckle commented she agreed in part with Mr. deLong as far as the PCD. She believed the PCD concept was well designed and controlled. However, when a PCD allows what she sees is allowable in C-3, she cannot, in good conscience, vote to recommend turning in an R-lA, C-2, and R-3 piece of property for uses that are contained in a C-3 zoning, regardless of the controls and the safeguards. There are pages of C-3 uses that can be allowed once the zoning is approved. Chairman Trauger agreed with Mr. deLong in regard to the controls offered by a PCD, and with Mrs. Huckle as to the great number of items contained in a C-3 zoning. However, he noted his main objection concerns the reduction of the R-lA because the City has so little R-lA available in good central locations. Chairman Trauger noted if any motion is made, the Board must recommend it is consistent or not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and included in the motion and if the motion is passed, the applicant must be notified that this proposal will be heard before the City Council on July 2, 1986, at 7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Ryder moved that the request for the amendment to the Future Land Use Element in connection with the application for the Shoppes of Woolbright, with a subsequent request for the changes in zoning from Moderate Density Residential and High Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial and rezoning from R-lA, Single-Family Residential, R-3, Multi- Family Residential, and C-2, Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Commercial Development (PCD) be denied seconded by Mrs. Huckle. ' - 52 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Chairman Trauger stated it has been moved and seconded the request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan for the Shoppes of Woolbright from Moderate Density Residential and High Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial and rezoning from R-lA, Single-Family Residential, R-3, Multi-Family Residential, and C-2, Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Commercial Development for the purpose of allowing construction of a 211,000 square foot retail/office complex to include a 63,000 square foot supermarket, does not meet with con- sistency of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried 5-2. The following Board members voted negative to the motion: Mr. DeLong Mr. Pagliarulo TEXT AMENDMENT PROJECT NAME: AGENT: Winchester Property Railroad Crossing Rick Rossi OWNERS: Seaboard System Railroad, Inc. Bulldog Industries, Inc. Four Steel Corporation Puentes Jacinto L&M Martin Paul D. DeGrangillier, et al Elsie Winchester, et al Sol C. Shaye and Jonathan Kislak, Trustees First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach, Inc. LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: S. W. llth Avenue at the Seaboard System Railroad tracks approximately 1,200 feet north of Woolbright Road. Request for an amendment to the Traffic and Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to provide for a railroad crossing at S. W. llth Avenue and the Seaboard System - 53 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Railroad tracks, the routing of a collector road through Lake Boynton Estates Plat No. 3 to provide for connection onto Woolbright Road and the removal of the existing railroad crossing at West Ocean Drive. Mr. Annunziato stated this is a request to amend the traffic and circulation element of the COmprehensive Plan by showing a new railroad crossing at S. W. llth Avenue, approximately 80 feet north of the Seaboard System Railroad tracks. Mr. Annunziato advised this request comes to the Planning and Zoning Board with positive recommendation. If the railroad crossing can be connected with S. W. 8th Street with the collector road, substantial benefits can be accrued to the public in general and to the property owners. Mr. Annunziato pointed out the following reasons for recom- mending these changes: By closing the Ocean Avenue railroad crossing, all industrial traffic which currently traverses N. W. 1st Avenue and Ocean Drive, both local residential streets, would be rerouted to the south to the proposed 80 foot collector, then to S. W. 8th Street, also a collector, then to Woolbright Road. The reduction in the level of density and intensity of the development in the area in general will result in reduced levels of traffic congestion, particularly at the intersection of S. W. 8th Street and Woolbright Road· The proposed pattern of land use and zoning would substantially reduce land use conflicts in the area in general. The net effect of 1, 2, and 3 above would be to protect the existing single-family neighborhoods to the north and west as failure to do so could result in disinvest- ment in the housing stock. - 54 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY Mr. Annunziato noted the following four Comprehensive Plan policies which are relevant to this request for a new railroad crossing: Provide for efficient and safe movement within the City. Provide a suitable living environment in all neighborhoods. Eliminate existing and potential land use conflicts. Encourage the development of commercial land uses where accessibility is greatest and where impacts to residen- tial uses are minimized. ISSUES AND DISCUSSION Whether the Proposed Railroad Crossing Would Enhance Compatibility of Land Uses in the Vicinity Mr. Annunziato stated, in the context of the Planning Department's Future Land Use recommendations, the proposed railraod crossing enhances compatibility of the industrial area to the east of the tracks with the residential area to the west of the tracks by causing the closure of the existing crossing at Ocean Avenue, thereby diverting traffic southward and away from residential streets. Whether the Proposed Railraod Crossing Furthers the Intent and Purpose of th~ Policies Stated in the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Annunziato advised this request, taken in the context of the Planning Department's recommendation, furthers the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan policies by increasing the efficiency and promoting the safe movement of traffice in the Lake Boynton Estates area, by enhancing the living environment in Lake Boynton Estates by diverting the industrial traffic away from developed areas, by eliminating existing and potential land use conflicts, by encouraging the preservation of Lake Boynton Estates single-family - 55 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 homes, and by encouraging office and professional land uses where accessbility is greatest and where impacts to residen- tial uses are minimized. Mr. Annunziato stated the Planning Department recommends the requested amendment to the text of the Traffic and Circulation Element which provides for a new crossing of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad be approved. In response to Mr. Ryder's inquiry, Mr. Annunziato clarified there is a recommendation concerning the location of the road which would be constructed when and if there was a demand by an applicant to install the crossing and it would be as far south along 8th Street as is practicable, given traffic design consideration. He stated you would turn south on 8th Street to Woolbright Road. Mr. Ryder commented that if you cross the railroad and proceed south into the C-2 area and then over to 8th Street along S. W. 13th, it would make for a better development than the R-lA area. Mr. Annunziato aqreed it would be more preferable than what currently e~ists because what currently exists is a road that goes right through two single-family streets. In response to Mr. Ryder's inquiry, Mr. Annunziato advised no study was conducted of this route as an alternate route. Mr. Vance interjected at this point all the Planning and Zoning Board is being asked to do is to locate the railroad crossing. The Planning and Zoning Board is not being asked to locate the road from the crosszng at this point in time. He added it is entirely impractical until there is a demand to locate such a route. Mr. Vance confirmed with Mr. Ryder that it is just the crossing at llth Avenue that is being considered. Mrs. Huckle questioned why we cannot leave the crossing where it is. Mr. Annunziato stated this has more to do with the advantages of relocating the crossing. In addition, he noted part of the problems exist with the location of the existing crossing, especially with the impact on the single- family neighborhoods in that traffic exits through local residential streets, for example 40 and 50 foot rights-of- way streets, and turns north to exit Boynton Beach Boulevard on local residential streets. - 56 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. Annunziato added the railroad crossing itself is rather outdated, in terms of current safety standards, and noted it can be enhanced with a new crossing. Mrs. Huckle referenced an ordinance which stipulated you could not run a road down to end in a cul,de-sac at any particular length. Mr. Annunziato stated there is a limit to the length of the cul-de-sac road. He noted the problem is going to exist with the new one and with the old one because the railroad will not permit two crossings; it will only permit a new one if the old one is Closed. It becomes a matter that the M-1 land exists, and there is only one crossing, whether or not it is the safest and most efficient way to have traffic exit. Mrs. Huckle advised she drove around the area by N. W. 1st and Ocean Avenue, and admitted the crossing is in bad shape. She believed it would be less expensive to remedy the existing crossing then to make a new one. Mrs. Huckle could not perceive the idea of bisecting this gorgeous piece of property with an industrial road, which will still impact on R-lA residential property. She queStioned why we cannot make do with what has existed in the northern part, which is accessible to Interstate-95. Mrs. Huckl~e noted it already has !all the uses are currently at the northern end. She ihas not heard an~ ~g that tells her why we cannot fix it up rather than this gorgeous piece of property and ~o expose dust to whiatever happens i:n that area when the neighborhood is accustomed to thes~ conditions Mr. Annunziato agreed with Mrs. Huckle's c~mments; however, he nDted the land use recommendations provide for inten- sifying the land use south of the propOsed roado Mr. deLong stated there is no imperative need existing at the present time, and advised staying in a holding pattern until we find out what will happen because he was sure what was discussed at this meeting was not over. Mr. deLong advised there is still a court case pending, and it would appear more advantageous to follow Mrs. Huckle's recommen- dation and look at improving what presently exists in that area until we know what will happen to this property. Mr. Annunziato commented it would be very difficult to improve the situation because of the right-of-way on the existing streets. He assured the Board it will continue to - 57- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 deteriorate as the properties in the M-1 area continue to develop, and sooner or later a very bad problem will exist. Mr. Annunziato advised any permit granted by the Department of Transportation to physically construct a crossing would have to resolve the issues Mrs. Huckle raised. As Mr. Annunziato understood the Department of Transportation permitting process, if there are objections to the closing of the existing crossing, there will not be a new crossing. Mrs. Huckle was concerned whether the people who would be impacted by the closure were notified in any particular way about this meeting. Mr. Annunziato believed those residents were present at the meeting. Mr. Vance stated he gathered that everyone who owns land on the east side of the railroad tracks is in the audience and applying for the crossing. In the Department of Transportation hearing permit situation, those who would be listened to would be those who own the land on the east side and have to use the crossing. ApDlicant Mr. Rossi, Agent Rossi & Malavasi Engineers, Inc. 1675 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Mr. Vance asked Mr. Rossi if all the owners on the east side of the railroad tracks and west of Interstate-95 are applying for this crossing location. Mr. Rossi stated in the audience there are representatives of Four Steel Corporation and Bull Dog Fence Company. The other owner, Seaboard System Railroad, did not have a repre- sentative present at the meeting. Mr. Vance advised Mr. Rossi the Board is amending or not amending the Comprehensive Plan, depending on what the Board desires to do. If they desire to amend it, the Board is merely amending it to identify the location of a new crossing, if and when there is a demand for a new crossing, and if proper right-of-way is made available. - 58 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. Rossi pointed out in September, 1985, he met with Tom ClarkJ. and representatives of the Seaboard Coastline Railway and the Department of Transportation. At that time, they went out to the site and designated on the site where they wanted the crossing - no further south of a given point. Mr. Rossi explained that was how the alignment with S. W. llth Avenue was determined. He added we cannot go any farther south from that point because of the curvature of the railroad. Mr. Rossi stated there were a few people present at the meetiag who represent the fence company and steel company and who have comments to offer concerning the problems they are experiencing in getting trucks in and out of the existing crossing, and who can answer questions relative to why it is necessary to change at this point. Mrs. Huckle asked Mr. Rossi if the Winchesters were anxious for this change and what were their particular concerns. Mr. Rossi explained the Winchester property was undeveloped. He stated this change all came about because opening this crossing was a general improvement to the Comprehensive Plan. He added it is understood we are not discussing how to get from the railroad crossing to Woolbright Road. Mrs. Huckle noted the additional trucks using S. W. 8th Street, going north, and coming out of this proposed S. W. llth crossing, will create much industrial traffic up to Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Rossi believed the trucks would go down to Woolbright Road to Interstate-95, rather than going down to 8th Street and north to Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Rossi explained the point of the discussion is there is an application for a crossing. In the event the Board approves the item, and as pointed out by Mr. Vance that it is just a matter of approving the crossing, Mr. Ryder questioned if the City would be locked- in to providing the collector road, or is it just permitting a possible alternate use. Mr. Vance stated the City is not locked-in to providing a collector road. The City is merely amending its Comprehensive Plan to locate a crossing in the event a new - 59 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 crossing is built. He advised, if things change at a later date, the City will again amend its Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Vance added this is not written in "stone." Mr. deLong asked for Mr. Vance's confirmation that in the Future Comprehensive Land Use Plan an 80 foot collector road will be located in the subject area. Therefore, it would be logical to assume the referenced crossing will eventually serve the collector road. Mr. Vance stated he did not disagree with Mx. deLong's statement. Chairman Trauger asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in favor of this proposal. Paul DeGrangillier Vice President of the Forest Hill Corporation 1896 71st Street Lantana, Florida Mr. DeGrangillier stated Four Steel has been at the present location, which is the old Seaboard Station, for ten years, and employs 23-24 people. Four Steel owns the old Seaboard Station, and across the street, which is immediately on the Interstate-95 west fence, they own 3½ to 4 acres. The street, between their office and storage area, is railroad property and an easement. He leases 150 to 200 feet on the east site of this easement. In addition, Mr. DeGrangillier has an informal agreement with Seaboard wherein he uses this easement as a loading and staging area for trucks and rail cars. Four Steel is an industrial supply warehouse and handles materials up to 60 foot long. Mr. DeGrangillier noted Four Steel is not necessarily in favor of Mr. Winchester's project. However, he would prefer seeing this area developed. It is Mr. DeGrangillier,s belief that Seaboard will only allow Mr. Winchester to purchase the remainder of the property if he pays for a crossing 1300 feet north of Woolbright Road. The proposed crossing would create some hardship for Four Steel, but in light of the alternative, if the proposed crossing is not put in, it will virtually put Four Steel out of business. As previously stated, Four Steel uses a staging area for loading and unloading trucks. He has between 50 rigs a day pulling out of the area, and some of the rigs are up to 70 - 60 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 feet long. If Mr. Winchester were allowed to build an industrial park in the area, the trucks could kill someone in the first week because presently there is a dock area with fork lifts carrying up to 60 foot material, and trucks loading and unloading heavy materials. In addition, the roads, which Four Steel is now using as a truck route, were built about 1910, and are antiquated. His trucks are pulling on the road up to 80,000 pounds on 75 foot rigs. He noted most of the traffic on the roads is commercial. If Mr. Winchester was permitted to build his industrial park in the area, without putting in a new crossing, Four Steel would be out of business. Mr. DeGrangillier reiterated the existing truck route is very dangerous. Furthermore, he noted Bull Dog Fencing has several truck rigs coming in and out each day. On an average day, Mr. DeGrangillier advised there are about 15-25 trucks going in and out of the area. In response to Mrs. Huckle's inquiry, Mr. DeGrangillier stated, if the crossing was opened up, the trucks would go in and out of the other area, and the only traffic to con- tend with would be Bull Dog and Four Steel. He noted, within the past five years, several duplexes have been built on N. W. 1st. He noted Four Steel needs! an access road. The only solution Mr. DeGrangillier could foresee is that Mr. Winchester be permitted to put in the new crossing. He noted it would create some hardship for Four Steel, but it would be less dangerous for the residents of the neighboring residential area. Mr. deLong noted the M-1 will be expanded quite extensively which means the location of the 80 foot collector road will be of vital concern to the people of Leisureville and is something to consider. ' Mr. DeGrangillier stated about 6-7 years ago, there was a different truck route which came out on 2nd Street, and the people on that street complained and requested the truck route be changed to the present street which at that time was virtually unoccupied. Since that time, a number of duplexes have been built on that street. In response to Mr. deLong's inquiry, Mr. DeGrangillier clarified the size of the streets used if the proposed crossing is put in would be much larger than what is presently being used. - 61- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. deLong commented if the City is to grow, these issues must be considered. The City must be fair to everyone, and there must be something in Boynton Beach for everyone. Mr. deLong pointed out the Board was determining approval of a railroad crossing at this meeting, and was not considering the road. Bill Hartman Owner Bull Dog Fence Company 555 West Ocean Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida Mr. Hartman stated he and his partner have mixed feelings on this issue because they are friendly with Four Steel and realize they definitely have a problem. What exists there right now for Bull Dog Fence Company is very convenient. They do not have the large trucks which Four Steel owns, and have smaller trucks coming in and out. He noted there is a problem in that if the railroad crossing is relocated, it will cost Bull Dog money. Mr. Hartman had already discussed this problem with Mr. Winchester and his attorney. The reason Mr. Hartman is torn between this issue is because in the long run he realizes it is more beneficial to have the new railroad crossing than to keep it the way it is now. He noted that Mr. Winchester is willing to work with Bull Dog Fence Company as far as the expenses he would incur if the new crossing was put in. Mr. Hartman noted Bull Dog Fence Company is the only one financially hurt by this request. However, the new crossing will be more beneficial than what exists now, and noted there will be much traffic going over that crossing. Mr. Hartman advised there were 21 employees at Bull Dog Fence Company. Considering there are 24 employees at Four Steel Corporation, Mr. deLong calculated there are 45 employees between two companies, which involves a con- siderable amount of jobs. Based on Mr. Winchester's plans in M-i, Mr. Hartman stated there will be additional employees in the area, and noted with only one crossing, there will be a problem. - 62 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. Hartman concluded that he was in favor of the railroad crossing because he believed it was beneficial for the City of Boynton Beach. He noted he was against the request because it hurts Bull Dog Fence Company financially. However, he believed Mr. Winchester would work with him on this problem. Over the long-run, the crossing is better off down at the south end because of the M-1 development in the area. Gary Lehnertz Vice President of the Lake Boynton Homeowners Association 619 S. W. 2nd Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida Mr. Lehnertz stated he was asked to make a presentation for this crossing from the Executive Board of the Lake Boynton Homeowners Association. Mr. Lehnertz preferred to see the industrial crossing of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad moved to S. W. llth Avenue. This would remove the heavy traffic that currently traverses along the residential area. The current truck route is not adequate for present or future traffic. As a personal statement, not specified or authorized by the Homeowners Association, Mr. Lehnertz stated he would hope, if the Board does approve the crossing, and from what was heard from other statements presented at the meeting, this road would minimize adverse impact in the residential areas. From what has been discussed, Mr. Lehnertz stated there is going to be some type of impact from an industrial road across to the industrial area. Whether the road is left where it is or moved, Mr. Lehnertz believed, after reviewing the maps and charts presented at the meeting, the City could, by careful placement of this road crossing at llth Avenue, minimize such a negative impact to residential areas. Chairman Trauger asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak in opposition of the proposal. - 63- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTONBEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Martin Perry Attorney Representing Trade Winds Development Corporation Mr. Perry stated Trade Winds Development Corporation is the contract purchaser of all of the lands through which this railroad crossing could only deliver all of the magnitude of traffic that is proposed to be delivered. On the City's Attorney ruling relative to what the Board has considered, Mr. Perry referred the Board to the application of Mr. Winchester. He recited from Page 2, Nature of the Amendment Requested: "To amend the Comprehensive Plan Text to provide for a crossing of S. A. L. at S. W. 11 Avenue (Lake Boynton Estates, Plat No. 3) thereby pro- viding access to approx. 21 acres of property Zone M-1 Industrial located generally between the S. A. L. Railroad and 1-95 extending from Woolbright Road northward to Boynton Beach Blvd. The existing railroad crossing at Ocean Drive would be closed after approval and construction of the S. W. llth Ave. crossing. Ul%imate routing of the access road through Lake Boynton Estates Plat No. 3, to provide for connection onto Woolbright Road at the existing 80-foot wide public right-of-way." Additionally, Mr. Perry referenced the Staff Memorandum, Page 1, Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: "This request can only be considered in connec- tion with a recommendation by the Planning Department Staff to extend an eighty (80) foot collector right-of-way from the proposed railroad crossing to the new SW 8th Street as it would exist realigned to intersect with Woolbright Road at the existing median cut." Mr. Perry suggested to the Board that they are considering more than just a railroad crossing. The Board is discussing an alignment of an 80 foot right-of-way. He noted this is confirmed by the application and the staff report. - 64 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. Perry stated under the prior application considered by the Board, he had no objection to the crossing and was pre- pared to work with it. Mr. Perry stated he is now left in a situation where the Planning Department is recommending a lower density, and is proposing to take a bad situation which exists and has existed for many years, predating all of the homes that exist at the other crossing, and force it down to another section. Mr. Perry commented that was incorrect. Mr. Perry pointed out in the City's files from last fall, there is a letter from Seaboard Railroad which outlines nine conditions under which they will agree to the abandonment of the Ocean Avenue crossing and the creation of the new crossing. He noted in none of those nine conditions is there one which requires the City of Boynton Beach accept all liability for this new crossing. At present, Mr. Perry stated the City has no liability for the existing crossing because the r~ailroad has the liability. When the represen- tative from F~our Steel Corporation discussed the concern he has for safety, Mr. Perry commented that concern belongs to the Four Steel Corporation and to the Seaboard Railroad. Under ~he new crossing, he noted this concern now becomes the ~y's concern. Mr. Perry concluded he is prepared to work with this if it can be resolved in a workable manner. He noted the City might translate "workable" according to what Mr. Perry believes is right. However, he suggested this does not appear to be correct in terms of taking one bad situation and curing it with another. Therefore, Mr. Perry emphasized there is a gre~ more effort that needs to go into this than simply t about the railroad crossing and the Com~ n. Additionally, Mr. Perry suggested what is being discussed is providing a railroad crossing to serve a private property owner. The predominant issue is to solve the problem of a property owner who has a land-locked piece of land. He questioned whether the applicant has a right of access. Mr. Perry stated the public is solving that problem with public funds at this point because someone will have to con- demn this right-of-way. He suggested that Mr. Vance, being an expert in Condemnation, could probably explain this better than Mr. Perry. - 65- MINUT'ES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Mr. Perry concluded one of the essential ingredients of Con- demnation is you must prove a public purpose. He commented the City has a real issue which must decided and will be litigated in court, unless this situation is resolved. Mr. Perry strongly recommended this request be put on hold for some time. Mr. Vance clarified what the Planning and Zoning Board is considering is the location of a future railroad crossing, if and when there is a demand for that railroad crossing and a source of suitable funds, either by way of right-of-way and/or money to construct it. ' Mr. deLong asked Mr. Vance if there would be any objection if the application was corrected, and the reference to the 80 foot road that Mr. Perry referenced and is in the appli- cation be taken out of the application. Mr. Vance noted the application does not have such a notation. Mr. Ryder commented the application only notates the ulti- mate routing of the access road through Lake Boynton Estates. Mr. Vance advised the comments regarding the 80 foot collec- tor road are the comments of the Planning Department. He advised if you are going to locate a railroad crossing, you cannot have a railroad crossing existing going north. If at some future time, this is actually going to be built, the Planning and Zoning Board should be aware there will have to be a street going to it. With respect to Mr. Perry's comments regarding necessity, Mr. Vance is convinced the curing of the situation, whether there is the present crossing, a multiplicity of ownership, and noted three of them are currently requesting this new crossing, would enable one to solve the public necessity problem. He is quite certain the City Council would not approve or construct this road until such time as the necessary right-of-way and/or public monies were being fur- nished by the applicants. Mr. Vance stated he would be happy to use it to prove there was public necessity. - 66- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Raymond Royce Attorney Scott, Royce, Harris and Bryant 450 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida As indicated earlier, Mr. Royce stated he represents the First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach. Mr. Royce remarked he was astonished the Board is not trying to discourage the expansion of this industrial area. He noted many of the other communities are attempting very hard to hide the industrial areas and to get away from Interstate-95 or from the main thoroughfare. Mr. Royce stated it is clear the railroad is principally in control, and by granting new and expanded railroad crossings, the City will be helping the railroad increase the industrial areas, which is beneficial to the railroad. The "very dangerous- situation, the representative from Four Steel referenced, will now be a larger, very dangerous situation because more acreage of industrial traffic will be dealt with than at the present time. Mr. Royce stated the dangerous situation is being moved from one location to another. He noted it is a bad situation that is "rooted" in history and has been there since the railroad came through in the late 20's. Mr. Royce is perplexed that the people from Leisureville, who were afraid of an office building or shopping center development, left the meeting and did not understand that hundreds of large trucks are going to be using the same road they considered would be so jammed up that a shopping center could not be built. He believed the residents of Leisureville should be very concerned about this issue because the problem is being compounded by allowing an increase in development. In addi- tion, Mr. Royce commented it will impact the Church's pro- perty. Concerning a specific route, Mr. Royce stated any route cho- sen has an adverse impact on the property of the First Baptist Church of Boynton Beach. He suggested the only means to get a right-of-way at this location are by two means. By working out a plan, such as the one that was pre- - 67- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 sented at this meeting with the owners on the west side of the railroad tracks, which provides for an 80 foot right-of- way and for the appropriate buffer. The only other way the taxpayers of Boynton Beach will be able to implement the COmprehensive Plan, once this rule is adopted, is to condemn it. Mr. Royce believed this was not for the general welfare of the taxpayers of Boynton Beach, but serves the interests of a few private property owners. He added he is not against the development of their property. However, just as peoplewere concerned about the property of Trade Winds Development and the Boynton Beach Baptist Church effect their rights, he is concerned about the traffic impact the situation that will exist when you try and indicate this is for public purpose, when it only serves a particular private purpose. Additionally, Mr. Royce stated, no matter which route is chosen, particularly the curved route which is recommended by the Planning Department, it not only devaluates the pro- perty but the issue of condemnation splits the property up and leaves two pieces. He noted it has an effect of dimin- ishing the value of the property that is left. In summary, Mr. Royce suggested to the Board the expansion of this industrial use is probably bad usage and has no controls or provisions for screening or buffering. He noted it is bad access and probably politically unacceptable to the taxpayers, if they were aware they may have to be involved in litigation and condemnation. Mr. Royce stated it may be legally impossible and destroys the Church's pro- perty. At the very least, Mr. Royce stated it needs more study. It will have a devastating effect on all the pro- perty in the area. In Mr. Royce's opinion, the issues discussed at this meeting, in terms of what happens on the west side of the railroad track, should be resolved at the same time this issue is resolved. In conclusion, Mr. Royce urged the Board members to turn this request down or to put it aside until such time as the problems on the west side of the railroad tracks can be resolved. - 68 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 Joseph Armellina 811 S. W. 6th Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida Mr. Armellina stated Leisureville has never been opposed to the Church development. In fact, the residents of Leisureville said they would help the Church, if they needed it. He stated the issue entertained at this meeting could be premature, and should not be discussed at this time. He noted it may be many years before this property is developed, and at that time, the application should be considered. By that time, Mr. Armellina commented the overpasses on Interstate-95 would be enlarged and lengthened, or another outlet might be available. He commented this is unknown at the present time. Mr. Armellina believed this issue should be tabled at this meeting and considered at another time. Marge Roberts 112 S. W. 8th Place Boynton Beach, Florida Mrs. Roberts stated she was representing the Coalition for Concerned Citizens of Leisureville. Mrs. Roberts reminded Mr. Royce that most of the residents of Leisureville are retirees, and they cannot stay at the meeting until midnight. She asked Mr. Royce to excuse them for not being present. Mrs. Roberts stated she understood the traffic will go south to Woolbright Road. There is nothing to stop it from going north to S. W. 8th Street. She asked the Board to consider that fact, and noted now Leisureville has the developers and the railroad on their "backs." Mrs. Roberts commented it is a sad situation for the people in Leisureville and Boynton Beach. She urged the Board mem- bers to please help them. There being no further presentations in favor or in opposi- tion to the proposed request, Chairman Trauger declared the PUBLIC HEARING closed. - 69- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 12, 1986 In response to Mr. deLong's inquiry, as to the ultimate routing of an access road through Lake Boynton Estates, Plat No. 3, to provide for connection onto Woolbright Road at the existing 80 foot wide public right-of-way, Mr. Annunziato stated this application does not provide for a specific road. It states there will be a need in the future to have a road. Mr. Annunziato advised the location of the road is not fixed in this application. Mr. Ryder stated there is not an urgent need for approval of this request at this time. It complicates whatever treat- ment this area will get, whether it gets this treatment or the original zone treatment. Either of them poses a problem. Mr. Ryder believed tabling it is no good because the Board will not know anymore about this issue the next time they meet. He stated it should be turned down. Mr. deLong moved to decline the application, seconded by Mrs. Huckle. Chairman Trauger stated it was moved and seconded the Board declines the application as not being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan at the present time The motion carried 7-0. · Chairman Trauger advised the applicant this request will be presented to the City Council on July 2, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board adjourned at 11:45 P.Mo The next regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board is scheduled for July 8, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. Carol Ann Brown Recording Secretary (Six tapes) - 70- MEMORANDUM 20 MaY 1986 Chairman and Members planning and zoning Board carmen S. Annunziato Planning Director Request for an Amendment to the Traffic and circulation Element/Enrico Rossi, P.E. for Elsie Winchester_ TNTRODUCTION Enz~co_R°s~li~ ' · hester, has requ ,_~_.~,7~ Plan be amended ml~e Wlnc ren~o~v~ · t ~ds~c~z~;~;rossing of ~ei~e~;~;oynton Estates, to oximatelY SW llth Aven ~e attached Exhibit A). ~new railrcad crossing is to ~he ourpose of req~ .... roximatelY 23 ac~es of land zoned ~ t .... ~s to the ~F~ ~. - ~.,een t~e interstate 95 prov~ae auy-5- .~_~ which £1e~ ~ .... ine i~-1 Light limited access right-of-way and the seaboard CoaStl Railroad- .. d in connection with a ........ st san only be co~s~d%~%artment staff to exten~ an T~s ~q~= ..... the Planning ~=~_ - =~om the proposeu recommenaa~o~_~ tot right-or-way z~ _. ~t would exist o~htv (80) lout c~ll~ ~ew SW 8th str~eu_~,~ existing realigned to ~nterse recommending that a new median cut. In addition to collector rcad corridor be provided, the planning Department ' that the land use category for the land is also recommending corridor be changed from south of the proposed collector Moderate Density Residential, High Density Residential and Local Retail to office and professional commercial, and that the property be rezoned from R1A single-Family Residential, R-3 Multi-Family Residential, and C-2 Neighborhood commercial to C-1 office and professional commercial. For the property north of the collector corridor, the Planning Department is recommending that the land use categories be changed from Moderate Density Residential and High Density Residential to Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential respectively, and that for the land adjacent to the Seaboard, the zoning be changed from R-3 Multi-Family Residential to R-2 single and Two-Family Residential (See Exhibit B). Among the reasons for recommending these changes are the following: 1. By closing the' Ocean Avenue railroad crossing, all industrial traffic which currently traverses NW 1st Avenue and ocean Drive, both local residential streets, would be rerouted to the south to the eighty-foot collector, thence to SW 8th Street, also a collector, thence to woolbright Road. 2. The reduction in the level of density and intensity of development in the area in general will result in reduced levels of traffic congestion, particularly at the intersection of SW 8th street and woolbright Road. 3. The proposed pattern of land use and zoning would substantially reduce land use conflicts in the area in general. 4. The net effect of 1, 2, and 3 above would be to protect the existing single-family neighborhoods.to the north and west as failure to do so could result !n disinvestment in the housing stock. However, in order to meet the subdivision requirements which prohibit cars from backing into collector rights-of-ways, the undeveloped property lying to the north of the proposed east/west collector would have to be replatted. If the changes recommended by the Planning Department and the request submitted by Mrs. Winchester are approved, the impacts on surrounding lands would be substantially less than those which currently exist. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY to The following Comprehensive Plan policies are relevant this request for a new railroad crossing: ,,Provide for efficient and safe movement within the City." (page 7) ,,Provide a suitable living environment in all neighborhoods-" (Page 6) ,,Eliminate existing and potential land use conflicts." (Page 7) -2- ,,Encourage the development of commercial land uses where accessibility is greatest and where impacts to residential uses are minimized-" (Page 7). ISSUES AND DISCUSSION 1. WHETHER THE PROPOSED RAILROAD CROSSING WOULD ENHANCE COMPATIBILITY OF LAND USES IN THE VICINITY- In the context of the Planning Department's Future Land Use recommendations, the proposed railroad crossing enhances compatibility of the industrial area to the~ east of the tracks with the residential area to the west of the tracks by causing the closure of the existing crossing at Ocean Avenue thus diverting traffic southward, away from residential streets. 2. WHETHER THE PROPOSED RAILROAD CROSSING FURTHERS THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE POLICIES STATED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. This request taken in the context of the Planning Department's recommendation furthers the intent and purpose of the Comprehensive Plan policies by increasing the efficiency and promoting the safe movement of traffic in the Lake Boynton Estates area, by enhancing the living environment in Lake Boynton Estates by diverting the industrial traffic away from developed areasr by eliminating existing and potential land use conflicts, by encouraging the preservation of the Lake Boynton Estates single-family homes, and by encouraging office and professional land uses where accessibility is greatest and where impacts to residential uses are minimized- Recommendation The Planning and zoning Department recommends that the requested amendment to the text of the Traffic and Circulation Element whiCh provides for a new crossing of the Seaboard Coastline Railroad be approved, as submitted by Enrico Rossi. CARMEN S. ANNUNZI~ATO /bks -3- MEMORANDUM Carmen Annunziato Planning Director Kevin J. Hal!ahan Forester/Horticulturist May 15, 1986 The Shoppes of Woolbright (Planned Commercial Develop- ment) - Master Plan This memorandum is in reference to the trees which exist on the above project. I inspected the site on foot and found there to be several large Live Oak trees, Slash Pine and Sand Pine trees throughout the property. I would recommend the developer locate these trees accurately'in the tree survey and try to incorporate as much tree preservation in the design layout of the project. The Live Oaks, if not pre- served in their present location, can be root pruned and trans- planted to appropriate greenspape on the project° I will work with the ddveloper in this regard if he would require assistance. Kevin J.~'Hallahan. ~-~-- CC: Charles Frederick, Direcror, Recreation & Park Depar~men= John Wildner, Parks Superintendent JW/ad