Loading...
Minutes 06-04-86MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4¢ 1986 AT 7:30 P. M. PRESENT: Walter "Marty" Trauger Chairman Garry Winter Vice Chairman Simon Ryder George deLong - John Pagliarulo Robert Wandelt Marilyn G. Huckle William Schultz, Alternate ABSENT: Norman Gregory, Alternate Carmen Annunziato Planning Director Tim Cannon Senior city Planner Jim Golden Assistant city Planner Chairman Trauger called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. The meeting proceeded with Chairman Trauger introducing the members of the BOard and the Recording Secretary. He recognized the presence in the audience of the City's Mayor Nick Cassandra, Vice Mayor Carl Zimmerman, City 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, and Jim Golden, Assistant City Planner. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of Meeting, May 13, 1986 Mr. deLong moved to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo. Motion carried 7-0. Minutes of Meeting, May 20, 1986 Mrs. Huckle did not come prepared to vote. The Board agreed to put it off until the next regular meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. - 1 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 COMMUNICATIONS None° OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT AND REZONING Mr. Cannon stated that before the Board started the PUBLIC HEARINGS, he had a handout to distribute to the Board and would like to review on this handout some points con- cerning the Planning and Zoning Board motion, particularly concerning what type of information or findings must be included in any type of motion regarding a land use amend- ment or a rezoning application. Mr. Cannon advised the City recently adopted a procedure for both land use amendments or rezoning. As part of that ordinance, there is a requirement that the Planning and Zoning Board make a specific finding that any land use amendment or rezoning application is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. There is an additional require- ment regarding rezoning applications which do not involve the Planning and Zoning District. If there are conditions or stipulations to be attached to the rezonings, the Board must make a finding that the stipulations are necessary for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Both applica- tions which are presented at this meeting are Planned Zoning Districts. Therefore, the referenced type of motion will not be necessary. However, if the Board were to recommend approval of either of these rezoning applications, it will be necessary for the Board at this meeting to make a finding that the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Referencing the second paragraph in the handout, Mr. Cannon stated the Florida Statute now requires the Planning and - 2 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Zoning Board at their hearings announce the time, place, and date of the subsequent City Council hearing. For the Board's information, Mr. Cannon advised that both of the applications being presented at this meeting, as well as the 'two applications to be heard on June 5, 1986, will be heard by the City Council on June 17, 1986, in the Council Chambers. All the pertinent information should be announced in conjunction with the applications. 1. PROJECT NAME: The High Ridge Center AGENT: Roy Barden OWNER: Max Schorr, Trustee LOCATION: High Ridge Road at Miner Road extended, southwest corner DESCRIPTION: Request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to Industrial and rezoning from R-1AAA (Single Family Residential) to PID (Planned Industrial Development District) for the purpose of allowing construction of a 10.45 acre light industrial development. Mr. Cannon stated this is a 10.84 acre parcel. Presently, it is in Palm Beach County and the County's single family zoning district, which is a RS zoning district. The property is located on the west side of High Ridge Road, approximately one mile south of Hypoluxo Road. The future right-of-way from Miner Road lies along the northern pro- perty boundary, and to the south of the property is a por- tion of the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. To the east of the property is a warehouse building at the southeast corner. Immediately to the east is the Boynton Beach Distribution Center, which is half completed at the present time and is a light industrial warehouse development. To the north of the property is a vacant parcel which is - 3 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 currently being used as a horse farm. To the northeast is another vacant Planned Industrial Development which is the High Ridge Commerce Center. To the northwest is a large vacant single-family zoned parcel. To the west of the sub- ject property is another unincorporated parcel which is currently zoned RS in the unincorporated area and is vacant. The applicant has already submitted to the City an application for annexation and rezoning. The application which was originally submitted was an appli- cation to annex and rezone the City's R-1AAA zoning districts. This should be viewed as a "holding" zone. The reason for this is that the original application which the City Council has approved was for R-1AAA zoning, and the applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to a Planned Industrial Development. However, there is a 20 acre minimum for Planned Industrial Development, and the applicant only has 10.84 acres. Upon the approval of the annexation and rezoning of R-iAAA which should occur in July or August, the applicant will apply to the City's Board of Adjustment for a variance. Providing the City's Board of Adjustment approves the variance, the City could then proceed with rezoning the property from R-1AAA to a Planned Industrial Development. It will be up to the Board of Adjustment to decide the variance issue. However, it is the Planning Department's position that this particular parcel should be viewed as an extension of the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce, and that the applicant is not violating the intent of the PID zoning district by requesting a PID since thJ.s will not be an isolated industrial development. Re~'erencing the report prepared by the Planning Department, Mr. Cannon stated they are beginning to use a new format for ev~.luating the rezoning applications, and this is the format th~.t is set forth in the amendment to the Zoning Code which the Board recently reviewed and the City Council adopted. Referencing Pages 2 through 5, Mr. Cannon advised there are specific quotes from that ordinance and specific issues th. t the Planning Department is required to address. St. rting at the bottom of Page 2, Mr. Cannon described one of the issues would concern whether the proposed rezoning wo' ld be consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan - 4 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 policies. The Planning Department had determined the rezoning would be consistent with the policy of encouraging concentrated industrial areas. There is also a requirement that the Planning Department recommend limitations that would be necessary in order to comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Technically, the limitations and requirements, which the Planning Department is suggesting with respect to this application, do not need to be tied in with the Comprehensive Plan of the City since it is a planned zoning district. By its nature, it is a contract zoning to a Master Plan. Continuing on Page 3 at the top, Mr. Cannon stated the Planning Department is recommending that the applicant reserve twenty percent of the site as a sand pine preserve. The extent of the property is heavily wooded and is about 80% covered with sand pines, mostly on the east and central portion of the property. As it slopes westward, the sand pines diminish somewhat. This is a quote from the City's PID regulationS. Therefore, this is not really a require- ment and can be negotiated. One item with respect to the 20% requirement is that it has been the Planning Department's conclusion that the applicant can include the 20~ open space in the buffer, which is required to surround the entire parcel. The Urban Forester's memorandum specifi- cally addresses what the applicant is required to do to pre- serve the sand pines on site. The most important item noted is they must be fairly substantial parcels, that is, one to two parcels, since the sand pine community needs substantial parcels in order to survive and thrive. The Planning Department recommended that a minimum of 50% of the trees and shrubs which are planted by the developer should be native species which are adapted to soil con- ditions on-site. This no longer reflects the requirement which was included in the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce to the south. The PID requires that a 40 foot buffer be pro- vided along the north side since the property to the north is zoned residential, and the buffer of 25 feet is required on the other r.emaining three sides of the property. Referencing the two paragraphs in brackets in the middle of Page 3, Mr. Cannon stated this was the language which was lifted to a certain extent from the Treasure Coast Regional - 5 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Planning Agency's conditions on the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. It is fairly standard language used by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council in approving industrial developments. The Planning Department is modifying that language somewhat and applying it to this particular development. This is language which requires that the applicant have truck well drainage systems designed for containing oil and grease, and that the applicant also devise a plan for containing hazardous wastes on site and for pre-treatment of hazardous wastes before they enter the sanitary sewer system. Referencing Page 3 at the bottom of the page, Mr. Cannon advised there is a requirement that the applicant take measures to reduce blowing sand and clear construction on building site. Referencing Page 4 at the top of the page, it states the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established use. The Planning Department has determined that the entire area to the east and to the south, and eventually to the west is going to be developed in some combination of light industrial and office development. This is not a spot zoning and would be consistent with the land use in the surrounding area. Referencing Page 4 under Item C, Mr. Cannon reported this is much the same issue as described in Item B - whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable. Under Item D, the Planning Department is proposing the rezoning would be compatible with the utility systems, road- ways, and other public facilities. Mr. Cannon advised that water and sewer services are available, and the increase in water and sewer generation would not be substantial. As a matter of fact, it would be less than if the property was developed for residential uses. Mr. Cannon advised the traffic would not be substantial and would generate about 1,000 trips per day. The Planning Department had comments about driveways onto the surrounding collector roads. The Planning Department recommends that the applicant be limited to two points of access onto the surrounding access roads. He stated the applicant should be - 6 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 allowed one driveway on Miner Road, at the western extremi- ties of the property. In addition, the applicant should have an access point on High Ridge Road, and this access point would be in the center of the property aligning with Industrial Way which goes into the Boynton Beach Distribution Center. The Planning Department recommends the applicant dedicate a public right-of-way which meets the collector standards and construct that road from High Ridge Road to the western pro- perty boundary. The collector road would eventually serve properties Which lie to the west. The applicant would then be able to use a marginal access road or driveway easement going northward and southward, preferably along the rear of the property. This would provide access to the applicant's loading area which would be located along the rear and front of the parking: lot. Roadway improvements, which are necessary to serve this pro- perty, would largely depend on the development of the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. There are no other require- ments for improvements to the surrounding roadways, except for some improvements right at the intersection of Industrial Way and High Ridge Road which would include a left turn lane, northbound, and a traffic signal for which the applicant would be required to pay a proportionate share of the traffic signal, if and when it is required. Referencing Page 5, Item E, concerning whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the current and future land use, Mr. Cannon stated the same issue was previously discussed. If the property is developed as a high-quality industrial park, similar to the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce, it could be anticipated that such development would be compatible with the surrounding land uses. Under Item F, concerning whether the property is physically and economically developable under the existing zoning, Mr. Cannon stated the property is arguably developable for residential uses. However, it is no longer considered to be an appropriate location for residential uses. Under Item G, concerning whether the proposed rezoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the - 7 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 neighborhood and the City as a whole, Mr. Cannon stated the Planning Department determined this application would be serving the regiOnal market as opposed to a local or neigh- borhood market. This particular policy is not relevant. Under Item H, concerning whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City for the proposed use in districts where such use is already allowed, the Planning Department determined this is the only area of the City in which a concentrated industrial development can take place. Therefore, this application should be viewed in light of the development of the entire area surrounding the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. The Planning Department recommends the application should be approved, and states the application is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cannon noted that the Evaluation and Appraisal Report, which is currently under con- sideration, recommends this area be developed for industrial uses. The Planning Department's recommendation is subject to the comments contained in the Planning Department's report, and the comments contained in the memorandums from the City Forester and the Police Department. Mr. Ryder inquired if the matter has been considered in designating the street Industrial Way, and noted there were two other Industrial roads right off 1-95. For example, there is West and East Industrial Avenue. Mr. Annunziato explained the name Industrial Way has existed for some time. It goes back to the original proposed devel- opment for that site in the 1970's, and it appeared on a few of the plats which were never recorded. The name was picked up again when the Distribution Center was finally developed, and the streets were platted and constructed. It is possible to go back and change the names, but it would require substantial action by the City. Mr. Ryder commented on Mr. Cannon's reference to the change in format, and believed it was a good decision because in each instance, the particular criteria is pointed out and replied to.' Mr. Annunziato explained that Mr. Golden and he each took two applications. Therefore, the format is not exactly the same in each report, but the same answers can be - 8 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 found to similar situations. Mr. Ryder concluded it becomes very informative when each requirement is noted and referenced. In reference to the duplication of the name Industrial Way, Mr. Annunziato advised he could bring that issue to the City Council's attention. Mr. Ryder noted that this would be undergoing a switch which is unusual although a point has been proven in the reason for the switch. He commented it is going from an R-1AAA to a PID, which is ordinarily drastic, but across the road, there is a M-l, and the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce to the south. However, he was struck by the fact that it is going from a low density. Mr. deLong stated it depends on the area. Mr. Annunziato explained how this happened. Over the years, the City has watched this parcel, and there has been some desire for industrial zoning for a long time. The Planning Director has resisted rezoning M-1 because of the loss of control the Board and the Council can exert over planned zoning districts through such means as the eva- luation of the Master Plan. The applicant is well aware of this, but in order to apply for a PID zoning, the applicant first had to be in the City in order to seek the variance for the lot size. Obviously, one can clearly look at this and see that it is a little more than an extension of the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce or the Boynton Distribution Center. In terms of spot zoning, it would not qualify. The legitimate reason for granting the variance, except for the difference in property ownership, is that this is Planned Industrial Development. The problem the applicant incurred was a procedural one. In order to ask for a variance, he had to be in the City. In order to be in the City, he had to annex into a zoning category other than M-l, which Mr. Annunziato noted he would not support. The request was to annex into the R-1AAA zoning, Mr. Annunziato recalled at the time the the Board reviewed it, it was clear that the intention was for the applicant to come back in the future and continue the procedure to bring this pro- perty into the Planned Industrial Development category. Based on the development that has taken place, Mr. Ryder agreed it was questionable whether retaining a residential zoning would be proper. He could see the reason for this request. - 9 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 In regard to the Planning Department's report, Mr. deLong noticed it appeared they were getting into a comparative marketing analysis of sales of similar buildings, structured costs, and rental income. He inquired if there was a speci- fic reason why they are now given rental income from high technology buildings, and what was the intent of that infor- mation. Mr. Cannon recalled the discussion the Board had about two months prior when they were reviewing the revised sec- tion of the Zoning Code which applied to rezoning applica- tions. There was some discussion at that time as to whether a market analysis should be required of applicants. It was decided by the Board that a market analysis should not be required from the applicants. This particular application came in about that time, and it was anticipated that a market analysis was required. The applicant consented and did, in fact, provide a market analysis. Mr. Cannon would not expect a market analysis to be provided in many of the future rezoning applications. However, he commented it is worth noting in case of a PCD that a market analysis is required. Mrs. Huckle inquired if the PID ordinance had been changed since her copy of the zoning regulations stated there is a minimum requirement of 25 acres per PID, and Mr. Cannon stated 20 acres in his presentation. Mr. Cannon clarified it should be 25 acres. Applicant's Presentation Roy Barden, RLA/AICP (Land Planner) Roy Barden Planning Group 1300 W. Lantana Road, Suite 201 Lantana, FL 33462 Mr. Barden stated in the market study he should have men- tioned the potential outcome prior to these two applications because obviously the two clients were not pleased in having to pay for one. In that regard, the market study produced by the prospective developer or builder is normally kept private. He was pleased to see that it is no longer required for the rezoning applications. He assured the Board that anyone who undertakes a 10 acre development will - 10 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 produce a market study. There is hesitancy in considering using it as a basis for the rezoning request because the market place is in the pocketbook of the owner not with the public or elected officials. He complimented the staff on the new format of the report. He remarked he did not agree with all the comments, but he stated it was a well docu- mented and extremely well prepared report. He suggested in the future the conditions might be summarized in numeri- cal order because those are the ones they usually discuss. He noted, they are usually worked out with the staff ahead of time in order to avoid any disagreement. Mr. Barden stated he agreed and disagreed with a few of the comments, and wanted to discuss them openly with the Board, and offer his w[ewpoint on the staff comments he disagreed with. Mr. Barden concurred the 10 acre parcel owned by Max Schorr as Trustee, has been intact as one parcel for a long time and their intentions are to develop it for excellent, high technology, light industrial research type facilities, entirely within the Code of the PID ordinance. He stated he would comply with all the City Codes, especially the PID because it is an outstanding Code. He pointed out that he is recommending it to another municipality in Broward County as one of the best planning guidelines for researching mixed use type parks. Mr. Barden agreed the proposed land use to light industrial is in accordance with the land use plan of the municipality, both the existing and the proposed one. He proposed light industrial rather than M-1. Mr. Barden explained he chose M-1 as his first proposal but such heavy industrial manufac- turing is not in accordance with the land use plan. Therefore, he proposed light industrial. In reference to Page 3, Preserving Open Space, Mr. Barden stated he would like to come back to that item for addi- tional discussion. Mr. Ryder inquired if the greenbelt issue constituted a problem to the applicant. Mr. Barden verified he did not have a problem with the greenbelt, and realized it is a requirement of the Code and would comply with it. - 11 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Mr. Barden stated the Number 3 condition, relating to the truck wells, all the conditions relating to hazardous wastes or fluids which may pollute water quality, including Item Number 1, paragraph 4, he had no problems with those con- ditions, and readily agreed with them. Referencing Item Number 2, Mr. Barden advised he had no problem with the hazardous waste materials and realized it is a Federal and State requirement. He pointed out he did not anticipate any manufacturing or high technology facilities which may use hazardous wastes. He would like to get the same quality as Motorola which also has the same type of situation. If they did not have a similar type of manufacturing facility, Mr. Barden acknowledged he would still comply with all the requirements stipulated. Mr. Barden stated he agreed with Item A and B. Referring to the last paragraph, Erosion Control and Blowing Sand, Mr. Barden agreed with the conditions stipulated. On the top of Page 5, Mr. Barden agreed that left turn lanes should be constructed by the applicant. In the middle of the second paragraph, referencing the issue of eliminating driveways on the property, access points to the property, the 80 foot collector road, the marginal access roads, and the sharing of the cost of signalization, Mr. Barden stated he would come back to those items for additional discussion. Referencing the dedication of the required Miner Road right- of-way, as depicted on the chart, Mr. Barden agreed to dedi- cate the required right-of-way and realized it is required by the major thoroughfare or arterial Master Plan. He further stated he reviewed all of the above conditions with the owner, and the owner has no difficulty agreeing with the stipulations. He believed the items he referenced constituted all the con- ditions, with the exception of those conditions which Mr. Barden requested further discussion. - 12 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Referencing the sand pine area, Mr. Barden acknowledged the area Ks 80% covered by sand pines. When he did the tree count, Mr. Barden had his secretary type up a typical drafting aid to identify the number of trees, and she added one more "0" and he clarified they had approximately 2000 sand pines, six to eight inch caliber. He remarked they are excellent trees. Mr. Barden had spoken to the owners, and they are interested in preserving trees on their site plan and are not interested in clearing the total property . indiscriminately or paving the ten acres with asphalt. The owners are not interested in giving up approximately 15% or 18% of the ten acres, which they accumulated over many years, into non-productive use, and acknowl~edged the PID Code requires a 20% preservation of open space. Mr. Barden stated the Code is very specific in that regard but it does not state the 20% shall be sand pine, spurs, or any other specific plant material. It states the open space shall be preserved. Many people in the building industry have interpreted that, along with the Landscaping Code, as being preservation of existing trees and where one can ~ormally ~o sio between buildings and in the landscaped buffers. Mr are not opposing the 20% preservation ~t that the Board not specify that it would be about 2.2 acres and equiva- He noted the lots are 2½ acres. If they are forced to put them in one lot, one lot is being taken away from thei applicant. Mr. Barden requested to be treated by the City of Boynton Beach in the same manner as every o%~her applicant who complies with the 20% code requirement. He further ted they be allowed to preserve these areas in the i]cluding the 45 foot landscape buffer in the back, front s, and the spaces between the buildings. Mr. Annunziato stated there are three things that leads the Planning Department to the conclusion there should be pre- servation of open space on site. The PID regulations addresses two items. Indiscriminate destruction of native vegetation should ble prevented. There is a percentage applied which gives the indication if there is an oppor- tunity to preserve vegetation in the form you can count to preserve 20%, perhaps you should try. Lastly, to the benefit of the applicant, Mr. Annunziato stated when comparing this recommendation against the - 13 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 requirements of 160 acres of sand pine preserves and a 25% requirement set aside which was imposed on the developers of the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce, there has been a 5% enhancement in treatment for this applicant. Mr. Annunziato acknowledged he did not expect the applicant to meet that requirement in the greenbelts or between buildings. What the Planning Department is attempting to avoid is adding up parking space dividers and five feet wide areas in front of buildings. He is suggesting these areas should be substantial in s~ze. For example, along the north, there must be a forty foot greenbelt buffer. The applicant could have 40 feet by 300 feet in that area, and make up the sizable portion of the 20%. Along the front, east, south, and west, there must be a 25 foot greenbelt. Twenty-five feet by 1200 feet less driveways and roads is a substantial portion of the 20%. Therefore, Mr. Annunziato did not disagree With the applicant, but noted the Planning Department did not want to add up parking lot dividers and access a s rs in order to determine that the 20% open spa met. In his opinion, those are in addi- tion to the Landscaping Code according to PID regulations. Mr. Ryder commented the open space on the landscaping requirements are very pertinent to a PID, and noted this would be fourth one in the City. Mr. deLong asked what would be proposed so the applicant would not lose an entire lot. Mr. Annunziato stated it was just a matter of some very careful site plans, and believed the applicant understood that, and knew that the applicant is capable of it. It is just a matter of sitting down with the site plan and locating where the trees are, working the greenbelts, working the separation between buildings, and will not be a substantial problem. Mr. Barden stated when the owners and he discussed meeting that requirement of the 20% open space and the setbacks in between buildings, they agreed that could be done because they wanted to preserve trees. He stated they agreed with Mr. Annunziato in that regard. In reference to the comparison with the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce which had a 165 acres of sand pine, Mr. Barden pointed out this would not be relevant because that project - 14 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 had many conditions and sensitive areas including wet lands which met the State requirements for setting aside special areas, including sand pine, which the owner did in one piece. The Code requirement for 20% includes the parking area, and it would not be fair not to point out that other PID's and other site plan applicants set aside their 20%, whether it is sand pine or grass, and was the total of the parking area, the distances between the buildings, and the 45 foot setback. Mr. Barden commented the solution might be to set aside 20% of the sand pine area, and put that 20% between the buildings and the setbacks, and then haVe additional open space requirements for the tree islands, landscape strips, and the parking lot. He believed this would be Consistent with the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. Mr. Barden concluded he would like to offer his suggestion as an alternative to that condition. Referencing the next item on Page 5, second paragraph, concerning the driveway on Miner Road at the western boun- dary of the property, Mr. Barden showed a sketch of the pro- perty. He stated there is another building that may be proposed. He denoted one building was new under the M-1 and the other building existed there for a number of years. He noted to the south is the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce with a new right-of-way alignment. There is a ma,jor inter- section with a traffic signal. There is a major intersec- tion proposed at Miner Road which would go west to Congress Avenue which will provide access for the area as shown on the sketch. Mr. Barden stated the vacant property to the west is approximately 55 acres with frontage on 2~nd Avenue and on the future Mimer Road. The applicant has agreed to dedicate half of the 108 foot right~of-way which is about one half an acre. He noted they will be required to ~hat )c of Miner in order to get access. Mr. the first condition is to restrict the access to Mine Road. That condition alone is not something that cann( industrial uses k Mr. Barden !shoWed trees which would be up to the r:ear of the front of the buildings. lived with under the light road would be used by the trucks. ~rd members the location of the 3. The trucks would be backed gs, and cars would be placed in In response to Mr. deLong's question, Mr. Barden clarified that the length of the property is 307 feet. He noted in - 15 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 the business the ideal lot size for light industrial uses is anything greater than 300 foot depth. In order to get truck loading in the rear, at least a 100 foot wide building and at least 62 foot is required for parking on front, along with some setbacks for preservation and so forth. 307 feet is a critically narrow amount of land, especially when you start giving up space and putting up a marginal road in front. Mr. Barden admitted they had problems with that condition, unless it could be worked out that the front of the property has access for all the lots on High Ridge Road. The next condition is that one access road be provided for all three lots, and that no driveways come to these indivi- dual lots as is permitted right now by every other PID that is familiar to Mr. Barden. He believed it was a good planning requirement, but the City has the responsibility for some consistency in applying those conditions throughout the community. His proposal is the condition be modified to allow each lot owner at least one access road and not limit them to one access road for all four lots. In response to Mr. deLong's inquiry, Mr. Barden clarified the length of the property is about 1311 feet, and showed on the sketch the sectional lines. Mr. Barden stated the next condition which began as a discussion item in the Technical Review Board and ended up as a critical requirement in the final, concerned an expan- sion which the Police Department believed in the future would pose a problem with getting traffic in the inter- section. The Police Department suggested there be only one access road. The other requirement was that a parallel marginal access road be provided paralleling High Ridge Road, and that would be used with another access to provide access to each of the four parcels. Actually, the minimum requirement would be a 40 foot right-of-way. There is some latitude in the location so it could work out with the parking lot. However, he believes it is still denying an access road to each one of the parcels. He stated it was unfair and unreasonable when comparing access roads provided to other PID's in the City. Mr. Barden suggested a marginal service road not be required, but individual access roads to each parcel be allowed. - 16 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Mr. Barden confirmed that the connecting driveway from parking lot to parking lot is an excellent design require- ment, and they would be willing to agree to that which would mean that the owners would have to place an easement within their subdivision plat, running through the property line. This would prohibit individual property owners from having access through that marginal access road. He asked that it be placed inside the property, so that parking bays could be provided on both sides. It would not serve another 40 foot of dedicated right-of-way that no one can use. During the Technical Review Board meeting, a discussion was raised about the possible need for a publicly dedicated roadway through the property because of traffic require- ments and because this property is undeveloped. It is pro- posed to be used for light industrial uses in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Barden admitted he has not done any land planning for these owners yet, and they are not interested in submitting anything for rezoning. However, he did undertake some preliminary lanid planning in conjunc- tion with the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce to make certain that what was done in the Boy!nton Beaich Park of Commerce Master Plan would not prohibit development of this property. He did the same thing for this owner before making this pro- posal to make certain that no~hing was done to land lock these owners. Mr. Barden explained the Master Plan included a few low lying wet areas with some sand pines. The arterial system for that development is a gently curving road which would have a signal intersection. He denoted on his sketch the location of the signal intersections and pre- serves. He stated all the frontage access would be to the local street. Mr. Barden did not consider the collector road because it is only running half of a mile and usually collector roads run at least a mile. Discussion continued on the location of collector roads displayed on the sketch provided by Mr. Barden. Mr. Barden concluded they did not need the right-of-way through t~he property because the 80 foot collector street is adequate to handle all the land use and traffic the 55 acres would have. Mr. Barden recommended that the Board not require this condition. If a traffic signalization is required, the cost of the signalization should be shared by all the land users in that area, and should not be based upon acres of use or some arbitrary percentage by the number of cars and trucks generated by - 17 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 that user. Mr. Barden noted the number of cars and trucks generated by this user is going to be quite small compared to the type of mixed users that are in the nearby areas. Discussion continued on the route of trucks onto High Ridge Road and access roads. Mr. Barden stated if the applicant is required to set aside all the roads that are now required, it would comprise an acre of land. He noted the right-of-way under discussion comprises an acre of land. If you are in the business of buying or selling land, or even paying taxes on it, it does not take long to figure how much an acre of land would cost to purchase. It is a hardship to run a road through the middle of the property and especially when there is not a documented need. The need is based on jUdgement at this stage. In Mr. Barden's judgement, it is not needed because of the existence of High Ridge Road and eventually Miner Road. Mr. Ryder questioned an internal road parallel to High Ridge Road for circulation within the entire development, and the fact that there would no curb cuts. He expressed his con- cern over the need for extending Industrial Way. Mr. Barden added they could see the need for extending Industrial Way and may not have any of the ten acres left by the time the City gets through taking the roadway. Mr. deLong inquired what the 40 by 1300 figure was, and Mr. Barden explained it was an internal marginal access road as shown on the sketch, and is required to be at least a 40 foot right-of-way. Mr. Ryder commented the right-of-way was necessary. Mr. Barden suggested as an alternative to the 40 foot right- of-way that between the parking lots the City let them run that driveway as an easement from property to property so that the driveway easement would cross the property line, and there would be integral parking lots and driveways. The driveway would be 22 or 24 foot which would go through the parking lots and loop around the property and in the back for truck access. There would be a similar easement line, about 30 feet, running through. Mr. Barden remarked this was not an unreasonable requirement. He verified there would be an internal loop around the property. He added he - 18 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 could not live with that condition if the City did not allow them to treat it as a driveway from parking lot to parking lot, and instead follow staff's suggestions which forces the applicant to put a 40 foot marginal road immediately adjacent to the east property line. Mrs. Huckle questioned if Mr. Barden was anticipating that there would be one building per lot. Mr. Barden verified there were four lots. He stated that this was a land planning and marketing suggestion to the owners. The owners have not made a decision to submit a subdivision Master Plan. They will place a sales center on site with proposal to develop the property. The lotting will have to be arrived at on a basis of a market decision. It could possibly be two lots with two buildings, but will not be less than four lots because the market conditions and the building industry generally will not support less than two acre lots. Concerning the cost sharing of the signal, Mr. Barden stated a signal is needed at that location. If a traffic signal is warranted and documented, and some fair formula is arrived at, and if the City has consistently required other similar property owners to pay for such signals, they will have no right to oppose it. However, if the City has not done so, the applicant would oppose such sharing. If the applicant is required, Mr. Barden asked that the sharing be based on traffic volume per lot and not acres. Mr. deLong inquired from the figures given in terms of right- of-way if Mr. Barden was talking about the loss of 5.10 acres. Mr. Barden confirmed that the original acreage was 10.84. He stated the owner acknowledges the benefits that he has received from the early 40 foot wide dedication for High Ridge Road, and acknowledges his obligation toward the Miner Road dedication as an arterial road because that is a great benefit to his piece of property as well as everyone else. HoWever, when adding all the other require- ments and restrictions to use and sales, he begins to wonder what he will have left, and why is he being treated this way as opposed to other projects which are similar. Mr. Barden pointed out the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce is not simi- lar, except in land use. His parcel should be compared with other smaller parcels which are not thresholds of sensitive requirements. - 19 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Mr. Annunziato stated that much of the value that poten- tially exists in this property was generated by actions of the City. This property was zoned in a residential category in Palm Beach County in an isolated area. The issues related to High Ridge Road and Miner Road are non-issues. Those rights-of-way would be dedicated under any circumstan- ces in any development category, and are thoroughfare plan requirements. It is important to understand that what the applicant paints as eXtractions are actually ordinance requirements or Comprehensive Plan requirements and should not be considered items the applicant is giving up from duress or under pressure. These are items which are required by Code, including the 20% open space set aside, which the applicant Was aware of when he filed his applica- tion. Mr. Annunziato stated one of the things that makes the PID regulation work is the ability to attempt to mitigate nega- tive aspects of development before they occur. The Planning Department spends much time attempting to do this. The issue of traffic is probably one of the most critical issues related to this site. Having listened to the applicant's suggestion that each parcel should have access to High Ridge Road as other parcels may have access to a collector road, Mr. Annunziato stated the benefits of the Plan Development are to allow the City to address the issues of access roads in a Master Plan format. He stated, to see the difference, you would only have to look across the street on the east of High Ridge Road where there is unrestricted, lot by 1.ot, non-subdivided, nOn,Master Plan development. Obviously, if the City had thought about this zoning category twenty years ago, you would not see the configuration of land use access to High Ridge Road that exists on the east side. He stated it was a poor comparison. Why not a driveway in each parcel? Mr. Annunziato advised each driveway parcel would probably generate in the peak hours a need for a turn lane. Left turns for northbound traffic will be the key traffic impacting movement because it stops traffic on a two lane highway. There cannot be three or four turn lanes in 1300 feet. There isn't enough right-of-way north-south to make it work. This was part of the evaluation process which occurred in connection with the City Engineering Department and Police Department. - 20 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Furthermore, the requirement for an east-west road is a sub- division regulation requirement which says that dedicated rights-of-way must be ~rovided to allow for the continuation of public rights-of-way into non-platted areas. It is an extension of the publicly dedicated right-of-way into a non- platted area. This is Code requirement, and the 80 feet is a Code requirement because it states for industrial commer- cial roads you must develop by collector standards. These are all things that appear to be extractions, but they are based on the practical need and Code. Concerning the marginal access road, Mr. Annunziato believed the City is not concerned with having that as a publicly dedicated right-of-way. From a planning point of view, the intent is to have a marginal access driveway serving the four properties, entering and exiting off the 80 foot collector. If the buyer purchases a lot at the south end, and he must fill the 600 feet of driveway to get to the pro- perty, that would be something that will be addressed at the time of the platting of ~the property. No sales of the property and no sales trailer will occur on site until a final plat is recorded. Those issues will be addressed, and if it is necessary to access those parcels by an access easement, it will be required improvementS in the sub- division in the same way utilities are required and street lights. The width of the marginal access iroad is up to the applicant since he knows what he needs to move trucks. It does not have to be forty feet, and can be whatever is necessary to make the turn-in movements. However, it should not be used as a parking lot access aisle because there are moving trucks. If it is being used for access as opposed to a parking lane, then one should be thinking in terms of a separate driveway similar to the fire lanes where you are not backing into them and obStructing the flow of traffic. Mr. Annunziato stated the Planning Department's recommen- dation, as presented by the staff, is a good one, and comes with the support of the Police Department who had advised the Planning Department in writing. Mr. Annunziato concluded it is sound recommendation. Mr. deLong inquired what the Fire Department's opinion was in regards to the one egress and ingress road. Mr. Annunziato advised the Fire Department believed it was a good idea - 21 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 because it reduces the impact onto High Ridge Road. However, there probably would be more than one point of access for each lot. There might be two or three points of access onto the driveway. There might be a north-south parking lot connector, as recommended by the applicant, which probably makes sense. The Planning Department is suggesting for the major access to the property, espe- cially for trucks, they should do something on site, separate from parking, to connect the lots. It makes more sense when you consider it in connection with the turn-out onto Miner Road. Mrs. Huckle commented the more she hears about the develop- ment, the more she can agree with the wisdom of the minimum 25 acres. She did not understand the logic of supporting such a small acreage under the PID regulations, and added the regulations are there for a good reason. She did not believe trying to squeeze the 10.84 acre site into those regulations was practical. She noted when the PID regula- tions were written, with a minimum stipulation of 25 acres, there was good reason for it. All the supporting requirements lend themselves to developing with some kind of ease or some kind of sanity onto that type piece of pro- perty. Now we are taking less than half the acreage, and trying to superimpose the requirements for collector roads, parking lots, rights-of-way, etc. Mrs. Huckle believed we are trying to do something that is contrary to the concept of the original PID. Mr. Annunziato clarified that the 25 acres has lost its con- notation. It was of the size to prevent the request for PID's which might then be considered spot zoning. If these ten acres were in isolation, there would be no question that it would be spot zoning. However, it is an extension of the PID. Mr. deLong inquired if the main reason for its consideration was because of its proximity to the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. He referenced Mr. Barden's suggestion concerning the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce and getting some help with costs and fair treatment, and stated he believed if it weren't for the fact it was contiguous to the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce, the !Board would not be considering the PID at this meeting. - 22- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Mrs. Huckle stated this is a separate development and has no conneCtion with the Boynton Beach park of COmmerCe, She addled the Board must review this as to whether it is accep- table under the PID, and that what goes into the PID is a workable plan. As a result of discussions with the person who represents the property owner to the west, Mr. Annunziato determined the land to the west will be sold for the right price and developed. Mrs. Huckle questioned variances to the acreage require- ments, and the possibility of developers obtaining addi- tional acreage in order to comply with the regulations regarding the 25 acres. She commented that the PID regula- tions are well planned, and could not agree with the Planning and Zoning Board and Planning Department encouraging this deviation from the PID requirements. Mr. Annunziato stated when the initial discussions occurred in the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce an attempt was made to generate interest among all the property owners west of High Ridge Road and to encourage some kind of concerted plan for the area. He noted it would have made more sense, but it is difficult when you cannot hold someone up to join in an apPlication. Mrs. Huckle commented that was not the City's respon- sibility. Mr. Annunziato stated it usually isn't, but there is the overall planning of the City for those areas that are going to be in the City. To that extent, the Planning Department was interested in seeing the whole thing done at once, and it made sense from the Master Plan's point of view for the roads, utilities, etc. The following individual came forward to speak in favor of the proposal: Max Schorr Registered Owner as a Trustee of the property Mr. Schorr stated one item which is very unfair is to require them to put in a thoroughfare right through the center of their property in order to help the possible development of the piece of property behind his site. It is true that - 23 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 under the requirements which state you should consider the need for an access road throughout the property being they are land lock properties. An attempt was made to work with the owner behind them. He did not want to talk to him and never answered his telephone calls. Why should they be obligated to create a road which would benefit only the owner behind his site? Mr. Schorr stated there are enough roads without going into his property. Why should the City impose that obligation on him, practically creating a public thoroughfare on his property without condemning the land? Mr. Schorr stated it seemed to be most unfair. Mr. Schorr commented he could get by with the other con- ditions, and suggested, since he intends to have four different parcels, there should be one entrance way from High Ridge Road for each two parcels. Therefore, there would be two entrance ways instead of four. He believed this would be a practical solution. Mr. Schorr added he believed it would be totally impractical and unfair to allow only one entrance way on a 1300 foot piece. Mr. Annunziato suggested one way of overcoming that problem, and which has been proposed in other areas, would be to have one median cut on High Ridge Road. The applicants to the south axe building their collector roads with a median so that the left turn movements are reduced to one. The problem is not the right turn out, but the left turn in for the northbound trip, and that is the one that requires a median and a turn lane. Mr. Annunziato acknowledged he did not know how to overcome Mr. Schorr's problem except by four laning High Ridge Road and putting in a median. Mr. Schorr commented having one exit road for everyone leaving at the same time in the evening would create a terrible traffic situation. Mr. Pagliarulo disagreed and stated it would be the safest alternative since all the cars are turning left. Mr. Schorr reminded the Board that this concerns 1300 foot strip, which is equivalent to about six City blocks. There being no one to speak in opposition, Chairman Trauger declared the PUBLIC HEARING closed. - 24 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTONBEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Mr. Winter moved that the High Ridge Center's request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Low Density Residential to Industrial and rezoning from R-1AAA (Single Family Residential) to PID (Planned Industrial Development District) for the purpose of allowing construction of a 10.45 acre light i~du~trial development be approved subject to staff comments. Chairman Trauger stated he would also include in that motion that this meets the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This motion was seconded by Mr. Ryder. Chairman Trauger stated that it has been moved and seconded that the request for the amendment to Future Land Use Elements be approved subject to staff comments, and including the finding that this meets the consistency of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried 4-3. A negative vote was received from the following Board mem- bers: Marilyn G. Huckle George deLong jOhn pagliarUlo Chairman Trauger added to this motion that this Land Use Element Amendment will be brought before the City Council in the City Chambers on June 17, 1986 at 8:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the Agenda permits. LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENTAND REZONING 2. PROJECT NAME: The PCD Center AGENT: Steven W. Deutsch OWNER- City of Boynton Beach LOCATION: N. W. 22nd Avenue at Interstate 95, southwest corner. DESCRIPTION: Request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the - 25- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Comprehensive Plan from Recreational to Office Commercial, and rezoning from REC (Recreation) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development District) for the purpose of allowing construction of a 13.03 acre office development to be included as a part of the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. Mr. Cannon distributed to the Board members a memorandum, dated June 3, 1986, written to him from Deutsch Ireland Properties. Mr. Annunziato stated the referenced memorandum from Deutsch Ireland Properties addresses the Technical Review Board's concern about the access plan to the subject property. Essentially, the TRB and the applicant have worked out their differences concerning access. Mr. Annunziato will be discussing that item on Page 4 of the report which specifi- cally addresses the acess plan. Mr. Annunziato reported this is a parcel which is currently owned by the City. It was acquired by the City from Palm Beach County. Palm Beach County acquired the property because of delinquent taxes. It was dedicated to the City subject to its being used for recreational purposes. However, it became apparent both to the City and the appli- cant that this was not the most appropriate location for a future City park. The Master Plan for Boynton Beach Park of Commerce shows on that Master Plan a 17 acre parcel on the extreme northwestern portion of the property which will be dedicated to the City as a public park. Mr. Annunziato stated this rezoning is actually a land swap between the City and the developer of the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. Presently, the property is largely undeveloped except for a shooting range maintained by the Fraternal Order of Police, a Police Dog Training Facility, and a Police Dog Cemetery. To describe the surrounding property, Mr. Annunziato stated to the east is the Interstate 95 right-of-way. To the east - 26- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 of the referenced right-of-way is a single-family zoning district. High Ridge Road lies approximately 600 feet to the left of the parcel and is presently a two lane road. Mr. Annunziato noted that the Boynton Beach Park of COmmerce Master Plan calls for High Ridge Road to be relocated so that coming down from the north it swings to the east and would run along the western boundary of the subject parcel and swing back into the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. Mr. Annunziato advised that road would be built as a four lane divided collector road. Chairman Trauger questioned the rationale of curving that road in to come down along this site and back out when there is a straight road down. Mr. Annunziato clarified the pur- pose would be to obtain a better lot configuration within the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. He stated the preferred depth of lots from the existing highway, High Ridge Road, to the railroad tracks was excessive and not easily develop- able. By swinging High Ridge Road to the east, they would be able to create a better development. This is the way the Master Plan was approved. In response to Mr. deLong's inquiry regarding funding of the program, Mr. Annunziato responded it was the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce's responsibility. Mrs. Huckle asked if the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce owned the property north of 22nd Avenue along 1-95. Mr. Annunziato advised they did, and it was in the PID. Mr. DeLong questioned if the City was picking up about 3.97 acres. Mr. Annunziato stated the ultimate acreage in the land swap has not been fully decided yet because there are still some items being discussed which included land configuration, size, and environmental constraints of deve- lopment on this swap property. Mr. Cannon pointed out on the screen the location of this subject property. Mr. Annunziato stated it would be located at Miner Road and E-4 Canal, which puts it in closer proximity to those por- tions of the City that are going to develop residentially. Mr. Annunziato verified to Mr. deLong that basically it would be no less than an even swap, and the City might be picking up free additional acres. - 27- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Mr. Cannon pointed out that the City has acquired a parcel of property approximately 20 acres in size on Seacrest Boulevard. Mr. Golden pointed out on the screen where the parcel was located. Mr. Cannon stated the property would be the site of the City's North District Park, and that park would take care of the recreational needs for most of the northern end of Boynton Beach. Mr. Cannon stated, as far as the land uses for the surrounding area in the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce, the parcels to the north of the subject parcel and to the west of the subject parcel are designated on the Master Plan for office and/or hotel development. The parcel to the north- west will be designated for office development. The par- cels to the south and to the southwest are designated for industrial, research, and developmental uses. Going to the specific criteria by which the Planning Department is evaluating this rezoning application, Mr. Cannon directed the Board's attention to the top of Page 3, "Whether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies." Mr. Cannon stated the City has acquired a site for the North District Park. Therefore, the recreational needs for that part of the City are going to be satisfied. This parcel is no longer necessary or desirable for development as a City park. In order to prevent indiscriminate destruction of native vegetation, Mr. Cannon recommended that the applicant attempt to preserve the existing sand pines and slash pine trees to the maximum extent possible. This reflects a recommendation made in the Planning Department's Evaluation and Appraisal Report that the City take a strong stand in respect to preserving trees. There is a tree preservation ordinance, but it allows a wide range of latitude by developers. The Planning Department is suggesting that the developers, not only in this parcel but in all future site plans and rezoning applications, preserve the trees to the maximum extent possible. The Planning Department makes a recommendation, which is similar to the conditions placed on the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce, that the applicant seek to minimize erosion and reduce blowing sand on the site. - 28- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Mr. Cannon believed the Criteria B, C, E, F, and H can be largely summarized to meet all the criteria which deals with compatibility with the surrounding property, its developa- bility under the existing zoning, and the availability of sites elsewhere in the City. To summarize all the listed conditions, the Planning Department has determined the desirable land use for this particular parcel has changed because of the availability of alternate park sites and the development of the surrounding property as an office and industrial development. The use the applicant proposes, which is office development, is the most appropriate development for this particular parcel. Mr. Cannon added that land use conflicts with the surrounding properties would not be created. Mr. Cannon directed the Board's attention to Condition D on Page 4, "Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities." Mr. Cannon stated the Planning Department made a few estimates of the water and sewer demands that would be created by the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce, that is, a comparison between water and sewer generated by the office development, and the amount generated by a park. However, the water and sewer generated for an office development would not be significant and could be accommodated by the improvements that are going to be made with the development of the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. Mr. Cannon advised the proposed PCD site would generate about 3,000 trips per day compared to 780 trips which would be generated if the site were to be developed as a park. In the evening peak hours, it would generate about 600 trips. The applicant submitted a traffic impact analysis for the PCD site which determined that the improvements which are going to be made with the development of the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce would be adequate to serve the traffic needs generated by the proposed PCD. Mr. Cannon directed the Board's attention to the middle of Page 4, where it states, "If the interchange is constructed at 1-95 and N. W. 22nd Avenue, the developer would be required to six lane 22nd Avenue from Seacrest Boulevard to - 29- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONIN~ BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 the center of the Park of Commerce." He stated this will be the basis for the needs for improvement to N. W. 22nd Avenue. However, the developer was required only to four lane N. W. 22nd Avenue and not to six lane that road. The six laning of that road would have to completed by the County or DOT. Mr. Cannon stated the only major area of disagreement between the applicant and the City was concerning access from the site. The applicant is proposing a maximum of three parcels that would occupy the site and, as shown on the original Master Plan, four access points from High Ridge Road and one access point from N. W. 22nd Avenue. At this point, Jim Golden displayed the Master Plan on the screen for the Board's review. He denoted where the access roads were located. Mr. deLong questioned the length of the stretch along High Ridge Road. Mr. Annunziato clarified it was about 1300 feet. Mr. deLong questioned how you could not allow four access roads for the previous applicant, and allow four access roads for this applicant. Mr. Annunziato clarified that it was not suggested that the City approve four access roads for this applicant. He stated this was a request sub- mitted by the applicant. Referencing Page 4, Mr. Cannon stated the City staff originally recommended that access to the sites on High Rid!ge Road be limit'ed to two driveways and the access to N.W. 22nd Avenue be eliminated entirely since that is a ramp for 22nd Avenue which leads up to the overpass over 1-95. The Planning Department considered this to be an unsafe location to have an access road to the property because of a ramp coming down and going up to the overpass. The Planning Department had a meeting recently with the applicant. Referring to the memorandum distributed to the Board members earlier, Mr. Cannon stated it indicates that the City has reached an agreement with the applicant. That agreement is the City is conceding there should be three access points f~om High Ridge Road, and each one of these access points would be served by a left turn lane south- bound, and the northern-most access point will be centered 350 feet south of N. W. 22nd Avenue. - 30- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Mr. Cannon advised at this point the Planning Department is agreeing this Master Plan will not include approval of the access road onto N. W. 22nd Avenue. Whether that access is allowed will depend on the specific design of the interchange on 1-95 and N. W. 22nd Avenue, if and when that occurs. In reply to Chairman Trauger's inquiry concerning the 1-95 interchange, Mr. Annunziato clarified the various options proposed in the Benefit Cost Analysis did not suggest a clover-leaf type interchange. It suggested diamo~nd type interchange which in effect would structurally build an interchange very similar to the interchange at Hypoluxo Road where you do not have long sweeping curved entrances and exits. There has been additional discussion on having interchanges to the center and creating one intersection. Mr. Annunziato commented you will not see a need for any additional right-of-way for 1-95 interchange. If there is, it will be the responsibility of this developer to make it available since he is heavily involved in design, feasibili- ties, environmental evaluation, and funding of the interchange. Mrs. Huckle asked if Mr. Annunziato had the figures on the distance between the subject property and 1-95. Mr. Annunziato reported it was approximately 100 feet, and was only a separation of the railroad tracks. Mrs. Huckle questioned the depth from N. W. 22nd Avenue to the northern boundary of the subject property. Mr. Annunziato believed it would be 50-100 feet. Mr. Ryder noted when they get to the site plan, their knowledge will be clearer concerning permitting the possible interChange. Mr. Cannon stated the main access on N. W, 22nd Avenue will not be part of this Master Plan approval. The applicant may come back at a future date when the design for that inter- section is finalized. At that time, Mr. Cannon stated the request for the Master Plan modification will allow the access point. - 31- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4', 1986 Mr. deLong clarified the Planning Department is recommending three access points instead of four on High Ridge Road. Mr. Cannon added it would be subject to the conditions the applicant has set forth in his letter, dated June 3, 1986, and that letter should be made part of the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation. Mr. Cannon stated the Planning Department is recommending approval of this application, and that it be found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the staff comments which includes a comment from the Police Department, and that it reflects the TRB's original comments concerning the access points. The approval is also subject to the recommendations made in the Planning Department's memoran- dum, as modified by the statements and conditions in the applicant's letter, dated June 3, 1986. Mr. Winter stressed his concern over the bulldozing of the dog cemetery for the dogs that served the City. He was con- cerned over what happens to that area. Mr. Cheney noted recently the dogs have been buried near the Animal Shelter, but he was not certain. He noted dogs will be removed, adviSed he would get more information. The Police Department through the Fraterlnal Order of Police has been involved in discussions. Mr. Cheney has not specifically asked about the dog cemetery, and acknowledged it will be further discussed and investigated. Mr. deLong commented that Mr. Cannon had not discussed the traffic analysis. In almost everything he reviewed, Mr. Cannon noted almost every level of service fits Level D. Mr. Annunziato confirmed Mrs. Huckle statement that it was a peak time. He stated ithat critical movement analyses are intersection analyses, and the standard which has been recommended and adopted by the Regional Planning Council is that at only peak times, Level of Service D is acceptable. He explained peak time is for an hour and half or so, twice a day, and intersections will be a little congested at that time. However, over the remainder of the day, the Level of Service would be C or better. Mr. deLong commented that the means in which the City picked up this land for non-payment of taxes from the County has a restricted use in that it states the property should be used for governmental purposes. - 32- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Mr. Cheney clarified that the City and the applicant understands that in order for this to go forth, the City would have to get permission from Palm Beach County. Mr. Cheney acknowledged a swap, similar to this one, was made once before near Westside Baptist Church where there was much land, and the City swapped the land with the Church. It went before the Board of County Commissioners with no problems. Mr. Cheney had not approached the County about this, but he believed there would no problems. When the time comes, and we get to the point where the developer agrees that he will give the City three acres or more, then we know we must approach the Board of Commissioners. Mr. Cheney clarified, at that time, the deed restriction would leave this piece of land and be transferred to the other piece. According to the requirements, Mrs. Huckle stated it stipu- lates the Master Site Plan be presented to the Board in more detail. She noted the two proposals presented at this meeting were incomplete to a large degree. She added if the Board is going to review the proposals and approve or disapprove them according to all the regulations, she suggested the future submission include a more detailed Master Plan, which is delineated in the Zoning Regulations to include circulation and other items, and are not on the package submitted. Mr. Annunziato commented it has always been a point of interest as to what level you submit a land use proposal. Sometimes people go to great lengths to prepare a site plan, which probably will be 60-70% accurate by the time they do the hard-line site planning. On this site plan, Mr. Annunziato noted the Planning Department knows the loca- tions of the access points. Mr. Ryder commented since the Planning Department receives the changes in zoning, they do not feel it is practical to go to that extent. Discussion continued on this item. Mrs. Huckle noted the regulations show exactly what should be submitted, and they are adequate under these circumstances since we are all very familiar with the location. However, she stated the Board is attempting to close any possible loops that might interfere in making this a perfect situation. We are going to a brand new process of submitting these items to the State. She believed a few more details, such as on the Master Site Plan, specifically set out in our Zoning Code under the PCD, would not be too much more to present, and it is required. - 33- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Developer's Presentation John Moyle Representing the Developer Mr. Moyle wanted to clarify one issue stated on Page 4 in the middle paragraph. He stated Mr. Cannon mentioned the correction concerning six laning N. W. 22nd Avenue. He should have continued and mentioned the four laning of N. W. 22nd Avenue from Seacrest Boulevard to U. S. 1. Mr. Moyle believed Mr. Cannon would confirm that he intended to, but the record will reflect that he did not go that far. Other than that, Mr. Moyle stated he was present in order to answer any questions. Mr. Annunziato clarified that the requirements from the developer from the Development Order issued by the City would involve four laning N. W. 22nd Avenue from Seacrest Boulevard to Congress. There were no requirements for N. W. 22nd Avenue east of Seacrest Boulevard. This has not changed those requirements. What is suggested is that when the entire system builds out these improvements must be in place. Mr. Annunziato noted when everything is built in this section of Palm Beach County, there will be a require- ment to add two more lanes to both sections. Referring to the statement, 1-95 to N. W. 22nd Avenue, Mrs. Huckle noted it stated if the interchange is constructed at 1-95 and N. W. 22nd Avenue, the developer will be required to six lane N. W. 22nd Avenue from Seacrest Boulevard to the center of the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. Mr. Annunziato noted that statement was incorrect, and it should be four lanes. The traffic impact statement shows "need at build out for six lanes." Mr. Annunziato clarified that the developer would not be required to four lane east of Seacrest Boulevard. He added it is a County requirement at build out Discussion con- tinued. ' There being no further comments presented in favor or in opposition of the proposal, Chairman Trauger declared the PUBLIC HEARING closed. - 34- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 Mr. deLong moved to approve the application of the City of Boynton Beach for the land exchange, subject to staff com- ments, and in consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo. Chairman Trauger stated that it was moved and seconded that the Board approve the request for an amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from Recreational to Office Commercial, rezoning from REC (Recreation) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development District) for the purpose of allowing construction of a 13.03 acre office development to be included as a part of the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce, and in consistency with the Comprehensive Plan The motion carried 7-0. - Chairman Trauger notified the developer that this proposal will come before the City Council at their meeting on June 17, 1986, at 8:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as the Agenda permits. COMMENTS Mr. deLong stated that earlier Mr. Winter made a recommen- dation concerning Mr. SchOrr,s application for two access points from High Ridge Road. The applicant requested more than one access point. Mr. deLong believed, in all fairness to Mr. Schorr and his application, since the Board allowed three access points on a road about the same length on the same highway, some consideration be given to allow Mr. Schorr anOther egress and ingress on High Ridge Road. Mr. Annunziato clarified there was a substantial difference. This applicant,s road will be four lane divided, and the three driveways will be served by median cuts with left turn lanes in a median, and there is a substantial difference. He noted that is Why he pointed out to Mr. Schorr, if he wanted to build median left turns, it might not create as great a problem. Mr. delLong agreed with Mr. Annunziato,s statement. - 35 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA June 4, 1986 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Board adjourned at P.M. 10:05 Carol Ann Brown Recording Secretary (Three Tapes) - 36 - MEMORANDUM Carmen Annunziato Planning Director o,T~ Msy 15, 1'986 Kevin j. Hallahan Forester~Her ti cult uris t ~u~.~-c~ The High Ridge Center (Planned Industrial Develop- ment) - Master 'Plan. This memorandum is in reference to the site conditions and the tree preservation requirements for the the above project. The pro- posed site location i-s on part of Sand Pine ..~=~e comprised mainlg of Sand Pine trees with' an understoryeC°spstemof scrub oak/palmetto. 2% of all land This land type in is considered both uncommon. (less .~:thantive to development, types Palm Beach Countg) and very sensi- In accordance with the requirements of the City's Planned Indus- trial Development Regulations, the developer is required to have 20% of the land area in open space. This can be accomplished most effectivelg on this particular site by the following': 1. The developer the subm. it~ano of all accurate and detailed troe survey showing locati_n Sand Pine trees ?vet 6" in diameter, the Any surveyg'~'°UpSas°f trees of smaller diameter can be sh°wn~°n "clusters' " of the tree species. area where 2. From the Sand tree Pine survey, trees that the largest 20%viable open space area. This exist should be designated as and the most site area can either be One two acre or two one acre sites, but no more than -~wo sites used to comprise the requirement. ~ 3. This open space area should be over and above _the ~u~an~scape requirements for any parking lot or green spa-~e areas re- quired by the Landscape Ordinance #81-22. . . 4 onOncethethesite°Pen sp.'_~cetheareaareahaS been es~a-~-s-ed~Dlih and delineated plan, should be protected 'from any e~- forCr°achment'water Thiscr includes not allowing the area to be used drainage or on site water retention. _ 5. The ueveloperarea in hisS'h°Uldoverallthen consider the location of this open space design of the P.I.D. to assure the area remains in its natural state. ItoWillme~etWOrkthe intent in conjunction of th.~s memorandum with the developer and and project designer ~ ~.~ ~. ~ _~/.. ~ the city regulations ~/ / i ~vtn d~' Hallahan '~-~------- CC: Charles Frederick, Director, Recreation & Park Departemnt John Wildner, Parks Superintendent MEMORANDUM Planning Dept. Nay 14, 1986 Lt. Dale S. Hammack Police Dept. The High Ridge Center As per the discussion at the T.R.B. meeting on 13 May 1986, the plans for the above do not show proposed entrances to the property. I recommend that an entrance to the site on High Ridge Road be located directly West of the intersection of Industrial Way forming a four way intersection. If an entrance is .to be located on Miner Road, it should be located on the North side of the North West corner. Lt. Dale Hammack Police Dept. DH: as - Planning Dept. MEMORANDUM May 14, 1986 Lt. Dale S. Hah%mack Police Dept. The P.C.D. Center N.W. 22nd Av~. and High Ridge Rd. As per the d±cussion at the T.R.B. meeting on 13 May 1986, I feel ~e entrance on N.W. 22nd Ave. has to be eliminated. The entrance is too close to the intersection of both 1-95 (S.R. 9) and to High Ridge Rd. I also feel the number of entrances onto High Ridge Rd....f~om the site is excessive. I feel the number should be reduced to one with an enclosed loop road or at most two entrances with a loop connector road. DH:as Lt. Dale S. Hammack Pol ice Department COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS: PROPOSED CITIZEN PARTICIPATION ELEMENT I. State Mandate for Citizen Participation in ComprehenSive Planning Process Section 163.3181 F.S. reads: (1) It is the intent of the legislature that the public participate in the comprehensive planning process to the fullest extent possible. Towards this end, local planning agencies and local governmental units are directed to adopt procedures designed to provide effective public participations_in the comprehensive planning process and to provide real property owners with notice of all official actions which will regulate the use of their property. The provisions and procedures required in this act are set out as the minimum requirements towards this end. (2) During consideration of the proposed plan or amendments thereto by the local planning agency or by the local governing board, the procedures shall provide for broad dissemination of the proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public hearings as provided herein, provisions for open discussion, communications programs, information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. II. Conceptualizing the Citizen Participation Issue The first step in establishing a citizen participation program for the comprehensive planning process is to conceptualize the citizen participation issue. What are we trying to accomplish by involving citizens in the public policy process? The following items deserve consideration: 1. Who are the parties to be involved in citizen participation? 2. What are the specific functions we wish to have performed by this participation program? Where do we wish the participation activity to lead? How should citizens be involved? When in the planning and policy process is participation needed or desired? Page Two. e 5. 6. Is it to review a proposal? 7. Or is it merely to serve as a emotions? Discussion (in response to the above issues): Those parties to be involved in the citizen participation process shall include members of the general population as well as special interest groups and business concerns. Examples of the latter shall include but not be limited to the following: condo associations and homeowners associations, affected persons, neighborhood organizations, civic organizations, ecological and environmental organizations, minority interests, religious organizations, the Chamber of Commerce e of the ro o~e , tc. The o . P P d citizen artic' ' . . . . g al P lpatlon program will De to solicit input from the participants that will enable the City pOlicy-makers and planners to produce a final comprehensive plan document that truly reflects the needs of the people of the City of Boynton Beach. Participation can best be solicited by means of public notice, the Public hearing process, and through special workshops. It is recommended that input be solicited prior to and during the course of the public hearing process. Citizen participation can also be useful further down the road during the comprehensive plan evaluation process, in accordance with the provisions and procedures set forth in chapter 163 for the comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal process. III. Formulation of Partici air, on Goals and Ob'ectives The planning that accompanies the design of any participation program should first include a determination of goals and objectives. These may include: 1. Is the participation intended to generate ideas? 2. Is it to identify attitudes? 3. Is it to disseminate information? Is it to resolve some identified conflict? Is it to measure opinion? safety valve for pent-up The list of possible participation objectives will differ from time to time and from issue to issue. Therefore, when a specific mandated program is required, it is important to determine which objectives are most relevant. Page Three. Discussion (in response to the above issues): In connection with the provisions and procedures set-forth in chapter 163, F.S., there are two goals/objectives from the above list which are relevant to the comprehensive plan citizen participation element: Disseminating information (93) and reviewing a proposal (~6). IV. The Steps to Successful Participation Plannin~ The following steps should be carefully considered when developing any citizen participation program: 1. Identify individuals or groups to be included in the participation program, and identify the most appropriate method for dissemination of public notice. 2. Determine where in the planning/policy process the identified parties should participate (i.e., policy development, policy implementation, policy evaluation or some combination thereof). ' 3. Articulate the participation goals and objectives in relation to all parties who will be involved (i.e., elected officials, public administrators, affected citizens, etc.). 4. Identify participation methods or techniques that could serve as vehicles for the achievement of participation goals and objectives. 5. Analyze the resources required for the technique(s) to be used. 6. Match alternative methods to objectives in terms of the resources available to participating parties. 7. Select an appropriate method or methods to be used in the achievement of the specified objectives. 8. Implement the chosen participation activities. 9. Evaluate the implemented methods to see to what extent they achieved the articulated goals and objectives. Page Four. Discussion_/(in response to the above issues)- 1. As previously stated, those parties to be involved in the citizen participation process shall include members of the general population as well as special interest groups and business concerns. Public notices shall be as required by statute. In this instance, in a newspaper of general paid circulation in the City and of general interest and readership in the community, not of of limited subject matter, pursuant to Chapter 50. 2. Participation is to occur at the policy evaluation phase of the comprehensive planning process. 3. Participation goals and objectives will be articulated during the course of the workshops and through the public hearing process. 4. Participation methods to be employed shall include workshops and public hearings. 5. Minimal resources beyond those currently available will be required for the participation methods proposed. Required resources will include use of the Council Chambers and possibly the Building Department Conference room, and the related audio/visual equipment for presentation purposes. 6. See #5 above. 7. See #4 above. 8. Conduct workshops/hearings. 9. The nature of the proposed citizen participation program favors a subjective rather than an objective evaluation, as the analysis,program does no~ lend itself to quantitative measurement and ~orkshop Format The workshops can be used as a vehicle for disseminating information on the comprehensive planning process and for identifying overall community goals and objectives. Community goals and objectives can be identified through open or group discussion or through written means - a questionnaire or possibly even the nominal group process technique. The goals and objectives generated can then be used in developing a well-rounded comprehensive plan. These workshops can be held at the community or neighborhood level or some combination thereof. Page Five. Nominal Group Process Techniquq 1. In a meeting room the members of the group write down their ideas on a pad of paper, At the end of a 5-10 minute period a strUctured sharing of ideas takes place. Each person in turn presents one idea from his or her private list. A recorder writes that idea on a master chart in full v . members. The out~,,~ ~ ........ Jew of the oth · . ~ ~Om Enls h . . ~r propositional statements. P ase of the meeting is a list of 2. Discussion usually follows in the next phase of the meeting. However, it is structured so that each idea receives attention before independent voting. This is accomplished by asking for listedclarificat°n'on the chart, or stating support or non-support for each idea 3. Independent voting takes place. Each member selects in writing priorities by rank ordering or rating. The group decision is the mathematically pooled outcome of the individual votes. The new goals and objectives generated through use of the nominal group technique can thus be weighed against the goals and objectives in the current comprehensive plan as a guide for modifying existing plan polic~ or and can be used policy, creating new The advantage of the nominal group technique is that it allows for equal representation by placing restrictions on the spoken word. Thus, dominant individuals are not allowed to "take-over,, the thought generation phase. The benefits associated with a citizens goals program such as the nominal group process technique include the following: 1. The goals give clear signals to leaders of private and public organizatons about what citizens want and need. 2. A goals program provides an opportunity to use a systems approach to planning: examining the totality of problems and challenges simultaneously, studying their interrelatedness, and developing an overall community plan. 3. They provide a way for special groups to make their views heard: racial minorities the young, the elderly, the poor, etc. ' Page Six. 4. Possibly more important than any other benefit is that hundreds or even thousands of citizens learn more about their city: what is good or bad about it and what is deficient. They find that they can sit down with people from different parts of the community, from different races and can talk candidly together about the challenges facing their community; and they also find that they can reach consensus about what they want their city to be and to do. V. ~valuation of Final Product Copies of the draft version of the updated comprehensive plan should be made available for public review and inspection prior to final adoption. Any:discrepancies or omissions may thus be brought to light before the plan is adopted. BIBLIOGRAPHY Langdon, Stuart. Citizen Participation in America. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company, 1978. Langdon, Stuart. Citizen Participation Perspectives Washington D.C.: Lincoln Filene Center for CitiZenship and Public Affairs, 1978. U.S. Federal Highway Administration. E~ffective Citizen Partic_q~ation in Transportation ~. (volume~--I & II). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1975.