Minutes 04-08-86MINUTES OF THE PLANNING ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD IN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1986 AT 7:30 P.M.
PRESENT:
Walter "Marty" Trauger
Chairman
Garry Winter
Vice Chairman
Simon Ryder
George deLong
John Pagliarulo
Robert Wandelt
Norman Gregory, Alternate
Tim Cannon,
Senior City Planner
Jim Golden
Assistant City Planner
ABSENT:
Marilyn G. Huckle (Excused)
William Schultz, Alternate (Excused)
Tim Cannon called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M.,
welcomed back all the members who had been reappointed, and
informed the Board that he would be the Acting Chairman
until the voting of the new Chairman was completed that
evening at which time the meeting would be handed over to
the Chairman and the voting for the Vice Chairman would
follow. Thus, Mr. Cannon's first action was to open the
floor for nominations for Chairman.
ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN FOR 1986-87
Mr. Wandelt moved that the meeting be opened with the
election for the Chairman of the Board. All the members of
the Board being in favor of that motion, Mr. Wandelt
moved to nominate Marty Trauger as Chairman, seconded by Mr.
Winter. Mr. Gregory moved to nominate Mr. Delong as
Chairman, seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo. Mr. Delong moved to
close the nominations. Motion carried 7-0.
Mr. Cannon continued with the voting in order of nominations.
Firstly, the consideration of Marty Trauger as Chairman of
the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Wandelt made a motion
that the Board unanimously cast their votes for Mr. Trauger,
seconded by Mr. Ryder. Motion carried 7-0.
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
The meeting continued with Mr. Ryder surrendering his key to
Mr. Trauger.
In his new capacity as Chairman, Mr. Trauger then continued
the meeting by initiating a motion for the nomination of the
election of the Vice Chairman of the Board. Mr. Wandelt
nominated Garry Winter, Mr. Ryder seconded the motion.
Mr. Pagliarulo nominated Mr. Delong, Mr. Gregory seconded the
motion. Motion to close nominations followed Motion
carried 7-0. '
Mr. Trauger requested a raise of hands in favor of
Garry Winter for Vice Chairman, the motion carried 4-2.
Mr. deLong moved election of Garry Winter be made unanimous.
Mr. Trauger stated that a unanimous vote be made by casting
seven votes. The motion carried 7-0.
The Board congratulated the newly elected candidates.
Mr. Trauger commented that Simon Ryder has been the Chairman
of the Planning and Zoning Board for ten years and has led
the Board through many controversies with one main ideal of
trying to control growth in the fastest growing section of
Palm .Beach County. It was noted that Mr. Ryder accomplished
a tremendous task in controlling this growth under the
guidance of the City Council.
The meeting proceeded with Chairman Trauger introducing the
members of the Board. 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, Jim Golden,
Assistant City Planner, and the Recording Secretary.
READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of Meeting, March 11, 1986
Mr. deLong moved to approve the minutes as presented,
seconded by Mr. Winter. Motion carried 7-0.
-2-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
APRIL 8, 1986
Minutes of the Workshop Meeting, March 24, 1986
In reference to corrections and additions to these minutes,
Mr. deLong apprised the Board that he had several changes.
With regard to Page 14, Market Analysis, the minutes were
not quite accurate. In relation to Market Analysis required
for over one acre, Mr. deLong brought to the attention of
the Assistant Planner, Tim Cannon, that it was an
exceedingly high expense since Judge Lupo had made a ruling
that the County could not reject the zoning based on how
much commercial development is existing or zoned in an area
which is part of a market analysis. As a result of Judge
Lupo's ruling, the commission can consider a market study,
but, if it denies a project, it must cite other factors.
Mr. deLong's point at that time was that it was not an
expense to be treated lightly and the verbage should be that
the City may require a market analysis and that a market
analysis was not mandatory on anything in excess of an acre.
The minutes did not reflect accurately what was discussed.
Mr. deLong stressed that it should be stipulated that a
market analysis may be required. The reference to an acre
or larger be deleted. Furthermore, Mr. deLong stated
that it is not the Board's position to assure anyone's
financial success.
Mr. deLong recommended that the minutes should reflect that
he made the statement that the City should not be concerned
with guaranteeing against a person's failure.
Mr. Cannon suggested that as far as making a recommendation
to City Council for modifying that draft ordinance that
should be handled under D-l, Consistency Review. Mr. deLong
agreed that suggestion.
In addition, Mr. deLong pointed out another item discussed
at the workshop meeting, located on Page 17 of the minutes,
regarding applications submitted on April 1, wherein it
indicates that the Planning Department would have up to six
months in order to bring an application to some sort of
fruition. At that point Mr. deLong thought it was an inor-
dinate amount of time and he so advised the planner at the
meeting. In addition, at that meeting Mr. deLong had asked
Mr. Cannon specifically what he thought of the timing and he
suggested two months would be adequate and at which time
-3-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
Mr. Annunziato thought that four months would be better. At
that point, Mr. deLong stated he thought that three months
would be Sufficient. Mr. deLong pointed out that a statement
was made, in present tense, in reference to a backlog in the
Building Department. Mr. deLong confirmed what he did say
was that he would hate to see a backlog of work that the
Board must do begin to build up as it did in the Building
Department with all the construction duress that they have
been under and stated that it was until they hired addi-
tional people and understood that they cleared up con-
siderably. Mr. deLong did not want that to reflect past
tense but what he wanted to try to avoid was giving the
Planning Department that much time so that too many of these
things can be backlogged. Mr. deLong stated he still felt
that three months is a sufficient time for them to bring to
some sort of frution the initial hearing or whatever on
applications that are submitted.
To Mr. deLong's statements, Tim Cannon commented thought
that as far as the language of this proposed ordinance that
we should discuss this when the item comes up. He appre-
ciated that Mr. deLong was trying to correct the minutes but
felt that this issue should be handled this issue under the
Consistency Review.
Additionally, on page 18, Mr. deLong noted that the Council
constantly hears about the Comprehensive Plan and the State
mandate to have a Comprehensive Plan. In order to avoid
confusion in the minutes, Mr. deLong read the implication,
"Mr. Annunziato said the basis for the decisions will be the
Comprehensive Plan which is mandated by the State." It was
Mr. deLong's understanding that there was no Comprehensive
Plan mandated by the State and that there is a mandate to
have a Comprehensive Plan which is the City's and is not
State mandated. Mr. deLong gathered from the dialect and
discussions that it gives the impression that the State has
a planned way to adopt it. Mr. deLong would like the
general public, especially since expensive hearings were
going to be conducted in June, to know that it is not a plan
that is mandated but it is to have a plan that is mandated.
There being no further comments or corrections from the
Board, Mr. deLong moved to approve the minutes of the
Workshop Meeting of March 24, 1986, seconded by Mr. Ryder.
Motion carried 7-0.
-4-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Cannon informed the Council that they would be receiving
a copy of the Planned Evaluation and Appraisal Report this
week. The Evaluation and Appraisal Report will consist of a
technical report and included a proposed land-use plan. The
Council was informed that a schedule will be planned for the
workshops and for the public hearings to review the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report.
COMMUNICATIONS
None.
OLD BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
ABANDONMENT
1. PROJECT NAME:
Northeast Drive
Right-of-Way Abandonment
AGENT:
Salvatore Trantolo
OWNER:
City of Boynton Beach
L OCAT I ON:
East of Federal Highway, between
North Road and South Road
(Harbor Estates)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
That certain right of way shown
as Northeast Drive on the Plat of
HARBOR ESTATES, recorded in Plat
Book 21, Page 98, Public Records
of Palm Beach County, Florida.
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
Said right of way being bounded
on the North by the South right
of way of North Road; on the
South by the North right of way
of South Road; on the West by the
East line of Lots 9 and 22, and
on the East by the West line of
Lots 10 and 23.
DESCRIPTION:
Request for the abandonment of a
21' local street.
Chairman Trauger explained the procedure the Council would
be taking with regard to this item. To begin with, a pre-
sentation was made by the Senior City Planner, Tim Cannon.
James Golden disclosed that the subject right-of-way is a 21
foot wide right-of-way located in a small residential sub-
division, Harbor Estates, located immediately on the
southside of the Boynton Beach Canal just east of Federal
Highway. Property owners have driveways that provide access
onto it indicated on the overlay presented to the
Council. As far as the procedure for abandonment, the City
Engineer had notified the public utilities and based on
responses received, all but Florida Public Utilities have
indicated that they have interests in this right-of-way and
would require dedication of easement if the abaindonment was
approved by the City. Concerned utilities included
Florida POwer and Light, Southern Bell, and Group W Cable.
Mr. Golden explained that as part of the procedure for aban-
donment the City Clerk's Office had notified the various
city departments and had received written responses from the
Utilities Department and the Planning Department. The
Utilities Director in his memo stated that the abandonment
could be not granted due to the existence of water lines both
within and bisecting Northeast Drive. The Council was
apprised of the fact that abandonment would require both
dedication of utility easements as well as the cost of relo-
cation of the utility lines. The Planning Department
objected to the abandonment for the following reasons -
Northeast Drive is an improved driveway and a functional
part of the City'S roadway system; and secondly, if this
request is approved it may set precedent for abandonment of
future links between North and South Road which may be
detrimental to the safe and efficient traffic flow in this
-6-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
neighborhood. Mr. Golden concluded by reporting that based
on the responses from the public utilities and the fact that
the subject right of way was a functional-improved right of
way, the City Engineer recommended the request for abandon-
ment be denied.
Presentation by Applicant
Mrs. Diddle
802 North Road
Lot #9
Boynton Beach, Florida
Mrs. Diddle presented to the Council several reasons why the
project should be abandoned. Firstly, she expressed concern
over the protection of children and pets; and secondly,
vehicle damage to shrubbery and fences due to the narrow
width of the road. Additionally, Mrs. Diddle referred to
security for the homes, peace and tranquility for the neigh-
borhood and the reduction of noise and pollution. In regards
to the water line, Mrs. Diddle acknowledged that she was not
aware of the water line and felt she had no problems of sti-
pulating the easement to the City for the right-of-way and
pointed out that it would be easily accessible to the City.
In regards to Florida Power and Light, Mrs. Diddle apprised
the Council that she could not foresee any problems since
the cable runs across the back of the property and across
the street in an aerial type design and not underground.
Mrs. Diddle argued if other neighbors decided to abandon
their roads, there still would be an access to North or
South Road from either street. Additionally, Mrs. Diddle
apprised the Council that Tom Clark, City Engineer,
informed her if he was aware that there were five connecting
roads every three hundred feet, he would have written
his report differently, and Mr. Cessna remarked that he
would not have had the problem of addressing the easement
right-of-way if Mrs. Diddle had written her request dif-
ferently. In conclusion, Mrs. Diddle commented that Mr. Golden
stated that 600 feet was an acceptable amount for the
street.
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
APRIL 8, 1986
After hearing arguments presented by the applicant and there
be no other parties wishing to present arguments in favor,
Chairman Trauger inquired if there were any parties present
who would like to make a presentation against this
abandonment.
Presentation in Opposition to Abandonment
George Davidson
804 South Road
Lot %36
Boynton Beach, Florida
Mr. Davidson advised the Council that South Road was a dedi-
cated road since 1947. He expressed his concern that aban-
donment of this road would set a precedent and cause
unnecessary inconvenience for the neighbors in entering and
exiting their~neighborhood.
There being no other presentations, Chairman Trauger
declared the public hearing on abandonment closed.
Discussion among the Council members followed. Mr. Ryder
suggested obtaining a recommendation from the Planning
Department indicating that the road is an approved right-of-
way and should be considered as a functional part of the
city roadway system.
Mr. Ryder moved that the request for abandonment be denied,
seconded by Mr. Winter. The motion carried 7-0.
PARKING LOT VARIANCE
2. PROJECT NAME:
First United Methodist Church
AGENT:
George C. Davis
OWNER:
First United Methodist Church
LOCATION:
Seacrest Boulevard at N.Wo 1st
Avenue, southwest corner.
-8-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DESCRIPTION:
Lots 1 through 21, inclusive,
Block 8, according to the plat of
Boynton Heights AdditiOn to the
Town of Boynton, Florida,
(revised plat), as recorded in
Plat Book 10, Page 64, in and for
the records of Palm Beach County,
Florida.
LESS
Ail that portion of Lots 17
through 21, inclusive, Block 8,
revised plat of Boynton Heights,
as recorded in Plat Book 10, Page
64, public records of said Palm
Beach County, Florida, lying East
of the Westerly right of way line
as shown on the right of way map
of Seacrest Boulevard as recorded
in said Palm Beach County records.
Request for relief from Section
5-141(e) "Drainage" of the
Parking Lot Regulations.
Mr. Golden, Assistant City Planner, informed the Council
that the request for the variance is also part of the
request for the site plan approval as is their request for
shared parking. Therefore, all three items would be
addressed in one presentation.
Accordingly, Mr. Golden explained that the First United
Methodist Church is requesting expanding the existing
fellowship hall by approximately 1000 square feet and under-
taking some exterior renovations to the building. As part of
the proposed expansion, the church was required to submit a
plan for its non-conforming parking lot located adjacent to
First Avenue nor to redesign the parking lot to current stan-
dards. City Parking Lot Regulations requires redesigning a
parking lot where it is not comforming such as in existing
structure additions. Along with the modified parking lot
plan, the applicant was also requesting variance to Section
5.41e of the parking lot regulations which requires that
-9-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
storm water be retained on site at a capacity of not less
than three inches of rainfall in one hour. As part of the
site plan request, the applicant requested approval of a
shared parking allocation for Sunday mornings in order to
meet its on-site parking requirements for Sunday school and
church. With respect to these three requests, the Technical
Review Board met on April 1 and ruled to recommend approval
of the parking lot variance request subject to the
applicant's constructing an inverted landscape buffer strip
along Northwest First Avenue to capture additional stormwater
runoff flow. The City's landscape regulations require a five
foot landscape buffer be provided between off-street parking
areas and public rights-of-way. The review board also recom-
mended approval of the shared parking allocation for the
church and the school on Sunday mornings. It was a consensus
of the review board that a fifteen minutes time lapse between
the school session and the church session before and after is
sufficient in mitigating problems of on-site parking and
traffic flow and congestion in regard to transition between
the two uses. Mr. Golden also apprised the BOard that the
review board recommended approval of the site plan subject to
staff comments, In reference to the site plan~ Mr. Goiden
pointed out a comment made by the City Fore er concerning
the lack of material landscaping for the lng lot. It was
agreed that the landscaping can be accommodated without
jeopardizing the code requirements for the church by elimi-
nating one to two parking spaces.
Mr. Golden concluded his presentation by recommending that
the Council consider both the variance and the shared
parking alloc~ request prior to the site plan as both
are necessary uts of the site plan approval and
reminded the Boar to consider the staff comments.
Presentation byApplicant
George Davis, Architect
1100 South Federal Highway
Boynton Beach, Florida
Mr. Davis apprised the Board that the church is willing to
restripe the lot, landscape, irrigate, illuminate it at the
cost of losing nearly thirty parking spaces in order to
build a small addition to its building. To comply with the
parking ordinance in reference to the drainage would require a
massive upheaval and rebuilding of the entire site in order
-10-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
to keep the rain water off the parking lot and is the reason
the Church requests the variance on hardship based on the
cost involved in reshaping the parking lot. Mr. Davis
affirmed he would comply with staff recommendations.
Presentation in Favor of Project
George Dettman, Minister
First United Methodist Church
Boynton Beach, Florida
Mr. Dettman explained to the Board that attempts have been
made to comply with the city's requirements. However, he
related that to correct the drainage problem would be be a
large expenditure for the Church. Mr. Dettman concluded
that due the membership growth of the church, the additional
facilities are imperative to the church's program.
There being no other comments in favor or in opposition to
this application, Chairman Trauger declared the public
hearing closed.
Mr. Gregory moved to approve the parking lot variance sub-
ject to staff recommendations for request for relief,
Section 5-141(e), "Drainage" of the Parking Lot Regulations.
The motion was seconded by Mr. deLong. Motion approved 7-0.
SITE PLAN
3. PROJECT NAME:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
First United Methodist Church
George C. Davis
First United Methodist Church
Seacrest Boulevard at N.W. 1st
Avenue, southwest corner.
Request for site plan approval
to allow for a 1,000 square
foot expansion of the existing
fellowship hall, a change an
parking lot layout and design,
and a request for a shared
parking allocation.
-11-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
Being that this item has been covered in the previous
request and being that there was no further comments to be
offered, Chairman Trauger cited that a motion was in order.
Mr. Wandelt moved to approve the motion with the recommen-
dation to include the approval subject to staff comments to
allow for the 1000 square foot expansion of the existing
Fellowship Hall, a change in the parking lot layout and
design, and a request for a shared parking allocation. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Winter. Motion carried 7-0.
B. SUBDIVISIONS
MASTER PLAN
1. PROJECT NAME
Manor Care Nursing Center
AGENT:
Rick Rossi, P.E.
OWNER:
Manor Care of Boynton Beach, Inc.
L OCAT I ON:
Congress Avenue at Charter
Drive, northwest corner.
DESCRIPTION:
Request for master plan approval
for a commercial subdivision to
allow construction of a personal
care facility (convalescent
center) in addition to the existing
nursing center.
Mr. Golden addressed this issue and apprised the Board
that Manor Care Nursing Center is seeking to define existing
commercial property into two parcels of equal size, approxi-
mately 4.6 acres a piece. The reason is to provide for an
addition to the personal care facility which essentially is a
convalescent center. The pre-application was approved by the
Board last month. The new facility will consist of
120 units and will be located south of the existing nursing
center and will share a common driveway on Congress Avenue
with the eXisting nursing center. In addition, two dri-
veways will be provided on Charter Drive. The required
change to the preliminary utility plans have been coor-
dinated with the Utilities Department after pre-application
approval. The Technical Review Board recommended approval
of this request subjlect tO staff comments.
-12-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
Presentation by Applicant
Peter Brenton of Moyle, Flannigan, Fitzgerald & Sheehan
Manor Care Nursing Center
Mr. Brenton introduced his colleagues, Mr. Don Felton,
Director of Development, and Mr. Rick Rossi, Project
Engineer. Mr. Brenton commented on how well Mr. Golden had
summarized his request. A few points were reemphasized by
Mr. Brenton. He explained that the current zoning on the
parcel is C-3 commercial and that the project is one that is
right under the zone designation and the purpose of the pro-
posal is to develop a 120 bed personal care facility adja-
cent to the existing nursing facility and to provide for the
future expansion of the existing nursing facility by sixty
beds, and the expansion will be contingent upon receiving
the Certificate of Need. Since the center's pre-application
was unanimously approved, the center is now applying for a
Master Plan approval from the Board. -
Mr. Rossi, of Rossi and Malvasi, Project Engineer, then pre-
sented the technical aspects of the Master Plan to the Board.
He apprised the Board that he had read the comments from the
Utilities Department and Engineering Department, concurred
with the comments, and made the necessary corrections.
The following comments were offered by the center's Director
of Development, Mr. Don Feldman. The Board was apprised that
this was basically a personal care facility comprised of
80-100 rooms with 120 beds and providing a continual care
service for individuals who need various levels of care.
Mr. Feldman explained that the existing facility's capacity
is at its maximum in addition to having a waiting list.
With the addition of the new building, about 119 additional
parking spaces have been planned and will be fused with the
existing parking facility. In reference to a review by the
District Council or Planning Council, the building would be
inspected by the State Department of Health at the time of
completion.
Mr. deLong remarked that it was an excellent idea stipu-
lating that it is a traumatic experience for elderly people
when they are placed in a new environment in order to obtain
nursing or convalescent care.
-13-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
No other comments being submitted by the board, Mr. Ryder
recommended approval subject to staff comments, seconded by
Mr. deLong. Motion carried 7-0.
MASTER PLAN MODIFICATION
2. PROJECT NAME:
Boynton Beach Park of Commerce
AGENT:
George Zimmerman
OWNER:
Deutsch-Ireland Properties
LOCATION:
East of COngress Avenue, between
the Boynton Canal, the 1-95
right-of-way and Miner Road.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: (See Attendum A attached)
DESCRIPTION:
Request for an amendment to the
Development Order which approved
the Boynton Beach Park of
Commerce (Ordinance No. 84-51)
as outlined in the following:
(1) Section #3: The Amendment
application procedure and the
subsequent proceedings have been
duly conducted pursuant to the
provisions of Florida Statutues,
Chapter 380.
(2) Section ~4 Subsection (1):
Paragraph (c) shall be added as
follows: (c) Boynton Beach Park
of Commerce ADA, Amended Master
Site Development Plan submitted
21 January 1986.
(3) References throughout the
Development Order shall be
revised to conform to the Amended
Masster Site Development Plan, as
approved. Such revisions shall
be made in the interest of con-
sistency and clarity.
-14-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
Mr. Cannon noted that the Planning and Zoning Board's motion
would be to recommend approval of the revised Master Plan
which would include the referenced amendments, and also sub-
ject to the staff's comments.
Mr. Cannon continued the meeting with a presentation of the
information submitted for the revised Master Plan. Mr. Cannon
explained that normally the Planning Zoning Board would have
final approval over a Master Plan Modification but since this
is a DRI, the City Council has to make the decision as to
amending the development order. Therefore, the Planning and
Zoning Board will be making a recommendation to City Council
either to approve or disapprove the development order. The
City Council will then determine whether or not any further
DRI review or approval is necessary. If not, Mr. Golden
advised that the issue will simply be handled as an amendment
to the development order. As far as the changes to the
Master plan, Mr. Cannon displayed the revised plan to the
Board and remarked that the City had an overlay of the
existing Master Plan which was recently approved. The Board
members were informe(! that there would not be any significant
changes to the acreage, offices, or commercial uses. The
rewised Master Plan changes Shows a larger number of lots,
smaller lots, more of an orientation toward office use as
opposed to industrial use. Mr. Cannon further noted that the
increase in the number of lots and the smaller size of the
lots does not preclude a purchaser from combining lots. A
major change noted was in the design of the lakes wherein as
many lots as possible front on lakes. Mr. Cannon informed
the Board that the applicant has changed the configuration of
the commercial uses. Mr. Cannon displayed to the Board the
Master Plan that had: been currently approved. The commercial
use would be internally located, it would be in a compact
area, and its primary function would be to serve the users in
the remainder of the development. The Planning Department's
opinion was that 22nd Avenue was never intended to be deve-
loped as a commercial strip as stated in the City's
Comprehensive Plan wherin commercial development was to be
avoided. Mr. Cannon pointed out that the intent would be
that this would be a retail-oriented corridor, and the City
cited that it was not only contrary to the Comprehensive Plan
but clearly contradictory to the intent of the PID regula-
tions to create industrial and office parks. Mr. Cannon
agreed that there was no objection to the commercial aspect
-15-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
if it was developed in the interior. Mr. Cannon disclosed
that it was not the intent of the PID zoning requirements to
create strip commercial development. The Board members con-
curred with Mr. deLong's statement that the Planning
Department theoretically would prefer the outward intent of
the project to resemble an industrial park. The meeting con-
tinued with discussion among the Board members.
Applicant's Representative
John Moyle, the applicant's representative, requested an
opportunity to clear up the Board's concern in reference to
"commercial strip." Mr. Moyle reassured the members that
the developer did not intend the project to be a strip com-
mercial development, A request was made by Mr. Moyle that
two additional be addressed. Firstly, the Board should make
a determination or recommendation that proposed changes do
not constitute a substantial deviation under Chapter 380
and that no further DRI review is necessary. Secondly, that
the development order be issued incorporating the approved
changes. Mr. Moyle mentioned that the revised Master Plan
was more of a refinement than a major change and there were
no new regional impacts created. Moyle emphasized the
importance of the reduction in the net development acreage.
He pointed out that the plan had been revised to implement
the development order by including a pine-scrub preservation
area and a city park. Additionally, the requirements for
single-phase construction project were incorporated, the
land uses were adjusted, the lots are smaller, and the sand-
pine preserve and City park were included. Mr. Annunziato's
staff memorandum was pointed out by Mr. Moyle as supporting
the request. Mr. Moyle concluded his presentation by
stressing that this project would be beneficial to the com-
munity and reminded the that it would not be profi-
table for the owner to u this strip as commercial
after investing such a tremendous amount of capital in its
development.
Applicant/Owner
Edward Deutsch
2455 East Sunrise Boulevard
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Mr. Deutsch disclosed to the Board that his main concern was
to provide the best throughout the park including the office
-16-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
buildings and the industrial park in order to attract the
optimum-type facilities for this area. Additionally,
Mr. Deutsch admitted there would be a small amount of retail
businesses included such as service-oriented facilities.
Mr. Deutsch demonstrated strong preference toward
restaurants, travel agencies, etc. which would serve the
overall park and surrounding commercial and residential com-
munities. Additionally, Mr. Deutsch apprised the members
that POA documents would be submitted to the City for review
prior to completion of the project and commented that was the
appropriate area for the City to venture into for exercising
control of the level of planning. In conclusion, Mr. Deutsch
dis!closed to the Board that he has plans of moving his entire
office entity to this location and his offices would be
located near N.W. 22nd Avenue.
Further discussion continued among the Board members con-
cerning the increase in the amount of traffic on 22nd Avenue.
Mr. Deutsch affirmed that his company has plans to four lane
that avenue from Seacrest Boulevard. Mr. deLong also pointed
out that in addition to the forty acres, the developer is
putting in scrub-pine and is incurring a phenomenal expense
in developing this project. Mr. Ryder referred to the TRB's
comments to which Mr. Cannon responded that the only
disagreement between the staff and the applican, t concerned
the location of the commercial uses. He apprised the Board
that there are no substantial changes in regard to this
amendment and basically are concerned with the location of
these commercial uses. The Board is reviewing the expansion
of what was approved as a commercial area. The overall
acreage of commercial uses has not increased substantially.
However, ithe question of the traffic impact along the major
arterial road was a concern. The TRB's opinion in regard to
location of the commercial uses along 22nd avenue was that
their deed restrictions and property-owner agreements would
severely ~restrict the type of uses located and that it would
not be a typical commercial area but a high-quality develop-
ment.
After viewing the overall proposal, Mr. deLong declared that
it was important for the Board to keep in mind that there was
no substantial change in occupancy nor was there anything new
being interjected into the proposal but rather this concerned
a marketing idea of where best to locate the commercial area.
-17-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
Additionally, it appeared to Mr. deLong from his knowledge of
the developer and his construction plans that he is the type
of developer who has no objection to paying $36,000 for a
right-of-way and $1,800,000 toward 1-95. Mr. deLong remarked
that the developer should be given the opportunity to choose
where to locate the commercial portion of the PID.
Mr. Cannon wanted to outline what the motion should include.
He stated that the motion should include a recommendation as
to approval of the amendment to the Development Order. In
reference Mr. Ryder's question on commercial use, Mr.
Cannon's opinion was that the Board could approve it subject
to the applicant's statements in his letter of February 28,
1986 and staff comments but deleting the Planning Department
comments in regard to: commercial use. If the recommendation is
not to find any objecltion to the location of commercial uses,
Mr. Cannon suggested stating that the Board was deleting staff
comments in respect to that item. Mr. Cannon reaffirmed to
Chairman Trauger that: the Board would be covered in both direc-
tions from that point. Chairman Trauger asked the developer
if there was any objection to the staff comments except to this
point of 22nd, and the developer confirmed that he was in
agreement with the remainder of the staff comments.
Mr. Moyle read the. proposed motion he had written which is
as follows:
The motion would be that the amendment to the Master Site
Plan be approved, that in Section 3 in the original develop-
ment plan, the amendment application procedure, and the sub-
sequent proceedings have been duly conducted pursuant to the
provisions of Florida Statute, Chapter 380. Mr. Moyle referenced
Mr. Annunziato's memo - Items 91, 92, 93. To be on the safe side,
Mr. Moyle would add - determine that the proposed changes do
not constitute a substantial deviation from the Chapter 380,
Florida Statute, and no further DRI review is necessary. That
was the only thing that Mr. Annunziato's memo did not contain
and Mr. Moyle felt those items were legally necessary.
Mr. Cannon responded that his department had no problem in
adding those items and remarked that it was a recommendation to
the City Council.
-18-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
It was moved by Mr. Gregory and seconded by Mr. deLong to the
motion read by Mr. Moyer for the record and it is stated in
our description in the agenda as far as Section 3 and Section
4 is concerned and the approval of the site plan which has no
significant change.
Mr. Ryder recommended a poll be made for the Board on the
issue at hand.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion as follows:
Mr. Winter - Yes
Mr. deLong - Yes
Mr. Gregory - Yes
Mr. Ryder - No
Mr. PagliarUlo - Yes
Mr. Wandelt - Yes
Chairman Trauger - Yes
The vote was 6-1. Mr. Gregory moved for approval, seconded by
Mr. deLong. The motion carried 6-1.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PROJECT NAME:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Boynton Lakes - Plat 3C
Rick Rossi, P. E.
Lennar Homes, Inc.
East side of Congress Avenue,
south of Hypoluxo Road.
Request for approval of
construction plans and prelimi-
nary plat which provides for the
construction of infrastructure
improvements to serve sixty (60)
multi-family attached units in
connection with a previously
approved Planned Unit Development
(PUD).
-19-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACh, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
The discussion of this next task was initiated by Mr. Golden
who explained that this project is located at the southwest
corner of two canals, L-19 East to West, E-4 North and South,
and immediately east of Plat B which was approved in February
by the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Golden further related
that the applicant had requested that the original Plat 3A
which included the subject area be broken down into three
smaller plats. The Technical Review Board recommends approval
of this request subject to staff comments.
Applicant's Comments
Rick Rossi, Engineer, Rossi and Malavasi
Mr. Rossi apprised the board members that the staff comments
were reviewed and he concurs with them.
Mr. DeLong moved to approve the application subject to staff
comments, seconded by Mr. Ryder. The motion carried 7-0.
C. SITE PLANS
1. PROJECT NAME:
La Plant-Adair Office and
Warehouses
AGENT:
L. W. Holliday and Associates
OWNER:
Michael L. Adair
LOCATION.-
East side of West Industrial
Avenue, between dead-end and
the Seaboard Airline Railway.
DESCRIPTION:
Request for site plan approval
to construct two 10,000 square
foot warehouse buildings and a
10,200 square foot office,/
warehouse building on 5.68
acres.
Mr. Golden described that this project is located at the end
of West Industrial Avenue on the east side of the
cul-de-sac. The applicant proposes to construct three ware-
house buildings. Building numbers 1 and 2 are to be 10,000
-20-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
square feet in size, one story in height, and will be divided
into bays. Building number 3 is a 12,000 square foot
building, 2 stories in height, consisting of 10,000 square
feet of warehouse space and 2,000 square feet of office
space. This building has been cited as the future location
of the La-Plant Adair moving operation, its office and warehouse.
Parking provided exceeds the code requirements for the pro-
posed uses. The required loading bays provided are located
on the east side of building numbers 1 and 2, with access
provided by two driveways off West Industrial Avenue. The
southern driveway will primarily serve building numbers 1
and 2 while th'e driveway further to the north appears to be
primarily intended for the moving operation located in
the rear.
The major arterial roadway entering the site will be Boynton
Beach Boulevard, located west of 1-95. Mr. Golden also noted
that currently there is a plan to provide a signal at Old
Boynton Road and 8th Street within the next one to two years.
In addition, there exists a proposal to place a signal at
Boynton Beach Boulevard and West Industrial Avenue pending
further studies into the functioning of the intersection at 8th
Street and Old Boynton Road. The buildings will be of fabri-
cated metal construction. Furthermore, Mr. Golden reported
that the water and sewer facilities are adequate to serve the
proposed use subject to minor plan changes noted by the
Utilities Department. In conclusion, Mr. Golden acknowledged
that the Technical Review Board recommends approval of this
request subject to staff comments.
A brief discussion followed among the Board members. Mr. Ryder
stressed his concern about the width of the road and future
problems with the subsequent increase of traffic.
Applicant's Comments
Lee Holliday, Engineer
(Representing Mr. Adair)
Davie, Florida
Mr. Holliday apprised the members that he had reviewed the
staff comments and was in agreement with them.
There being no further comments submitted, Mr. deLong made
the motion that the appliCation be approved subject to staff
comments, seconded by Mr. Wandelt. The motion carried 7-0.
-21-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
2. PROJECT NAME:
West Industrial Park
AGENT-.
Ken Swable - R. P. Carbone
Construction Company
OWNER:
West Industrial Associates
LOCATION:
West Industrial Avenue between
dead-end and the Boynton Canal.
DESCRIPTION:
Request for site plan approval
to construct three warehouse/
manufacturing buildings consisting
of 81,895 square feet of floor
space on 4.72 acres.
Mr. Golden described to the members that the project is
located immediately north of the Adair Project, previously
discussed. The applicant is proposing the construction of
three warehouse buildings. Building A and B are proposed to
be 28,845 square feet and Building C is proposed to be
24,205 square feet and will be of concrete block stucco
construction. Parking will be provided on the ~perimeter and
between the buildings and exceeds the code requirement for its
use. Access will be provided by a driveway off West Industrial
Avenue. Provisions for utilities were reported adequate sub-
ject to minor modifications as noted by the Utilities
Department. In conclusion, Mr. Golden disclosed that the
Technical Review Board recommends approval of tlhis request sub-
ject to staff comments.
Applicant's Comments
Ken Swable
Carbone Construction Company
400 Fairway Drive
Deerfield Beach, Florida
Mr. Swable apprised the board that he had reviewed staff
comments and was in concurrence with them.
-22-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
Chairman Trauger remarked that an increase in traffic seemed
evident and inquired if Mr. Swable had anticipated the traf-
fic impact on the deadend.
In response to Chairman Trauger's inquiry, Mr. Swable
affirmed that additional traffic would be generated but
noted this impact would depend primarily on the function and
size of the tenant. Mr. Swable admitted his preference
would be to lease a larger amount of space to a tenant.
There being no additional comments submitted, Mr. deLong
moved that the application be approved subject to staff com-
ments, seconded by Mr. Wandelt. The motion carried 7-0.
SITE PLAN MODIFICATION
PROJECT NAME:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Boynton Beach Mausoleum
R. Brady Osborne
City of Boynton Beach
Woolbright Road at Seacrest
Boulevard, southwest corner.
Request for approval of an
amended site plan to allow for
a 4,399 square foot addition
to the existing mausoleum
building.
Mr. Golden disclosed that the applicant is proposing to add
a new wing to the northside of the existing building and
the plans submitted designate the construction and design to
be similar to the existing mausoleum. Additionally, the
existing driveway located on the eastside of the structure
would provide access to the building. In conclusion, Mr.
Golden reported that the Technical Review Board recommended
approval of the request subject to staff comments.
-23-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
Applicant's Comments
R. Brady Osborne
Boca Raton, Florida
In reference to the construction of the building, Mr. Osborne
disclosed to the board members that plans for the new
building included the same type architecture as the existing
structure. At the same time, Mr. Osborne explained to the
board that even though there were crypts available in the
existing building, they were not the same type that was
needed.
Of direct interest to Mr. Ryder was a statement from the
City Engineer reporting that site plans were incomplete and
that information concerning site drainage was not included
in the proposal.
In response, Mr. Osborne answered that it was his
understanding that this was not a parking lot ordinance
since no parking lot exists.
Pertaining to this item, Mr. Golden apprised the board that
that the City Engineer had commented to him that this issue
should be addressed in the form of a letter which would
reference the original plan approval for the existing mauso-
leum and state that the draining plans would be base~ mainly
on the original plan. In addition, it should be stipulated
that there would not be any major changes because the imper-
vious area would not increase substantially.
In response to questions raised by the board members,
Mr. Osborne explained to the board that the same type
drainage system which was approved in the original plan for
the existing mausoleum was planned for the new building.
The middle of the roof on the building is 16 inches lower
than the edges and would defintely hold the stormwater that
is required by the ordinance. In conclusion, Mr. Osborne
anticipated no problems concerning the drainage plans since
it was the same type system used on the existing mausoleum.
-24-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
In summary, as a result of Mr. Golden's conversation with
the City Engineer, it was pointed out that no major drainage
problems existed but it was recommended that this item be
addressed referencing the original approved plan.
Following a brief discussion among the board members,
Mr. deLong made the motion to approve the application sub-
ject to staff comments which indicate that more complete
plans with regard to elevations, existing and proposed, be
finalized and agreed upon and that certain information con-
cerning site drainage be submitted, included and satisfac-
tory agreed upon. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gregory.
The motion carried 7-0.
D. OTHER
1. CONSISTENCY REVIEW
Proposed amendments to Section 19 of the Code of
Ordinances and to Section 9C of Appendix A, zoning,
which provides for procedures for review and appro-
val of proposed amendments to the Boynton Beach
Comprehensive Plan.
To begin, it was noted that this item was the subject of the
recent workshop meeting held on April 2, 1986, and that
Mr. deLong had commented in the beginning of this meeting on
the corrections and additions to the minutes of the workshop
meeting.
Mr. Cannon noted in the cover memorandum for this item three
changes which were suggested at the workshop were listed.
The members were instructed to review the memorandum dated
April 2, 1986, Item 61. Mr. Cannon reported that it was
recommended by one of the board members at the workshop that
the requirement for market study be deleted and modified to
state that a market study can be required at the option of
the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council but that it
would not be a requirement. In summary, Mr. Cannon
explained that what is being referenced is the required
material an applicant must submit with the rezoning or land-
use amendment application.
-25-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
Of direct interest to Mr. Gregory was the mechanisms
involved - how can the applicant be aware of the required
material to be submitted if the board does not review the
application prior to a staff meeting.
Mr. Cannon conceded that the situation could occur when a
rezoning or land amendment is presented before the Planning
and Zoning Board at which time the Board would simply stipu-
late that a marketing analysis was required and the item
would be tabled until a marketing analysis is submitted. At
this point, Chairman Trauger interjected that this would cause
a delay since preparation of a marketing analysis can take up
to four months to complete.
On the other hand, Mr. Cannon suggested to the board members
that the requirement for a market study be deleted entirely.
Thus, eliminating the imposition of this type of delay to
the applicant.
In response to Chairman Trauger's concern to the size of the
parcels, Mr. Cannon advised that his department could set up
a limitation of one acre whereby if any commercial or
industrial rezoning in the area was greater than one acre
that a marketing study would be required. However, Mr.
Cannon alerted the board to the probability that the acreage
could eventually be increased.
Mr. Gregory related that a marketing study is the preroga-
tive and duty of the investor when preparing his plans in
order to determine whether or not there is a requirement or
a need for the particular type of project that he anticipa-
tes constructing. Furthermore, Mr. Gregory confirmed that
he did not have an objection to a marketing study being
required on a five acre threshold but admitted that he did
not know what level that threshold is imperative to the
development of a market study.
-26-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
Chairman Trauger expressed his concern over the fact that
there has been experiences in the past where developers have
applied for approval and have never developed their project.
Seemingly to Chairman Trauger, it had been a speculative
adventure on their part and added that a market study
discloses the current feasibility of a development.
Mr. deLong discerned that problem will be precluded in that
there is an 18 month time period in the consistency review
whereby it will revert back to lower zoning which could be
extended a year at the favor of city council. In Mr.
deLong's opinion, the government will eventually become
aware of the problem of just speculation and keeping
something open since now there are provisions in almost all
of the cities regarding nothing being completed within a
certain period of time by the developer. Another item of
concern to Mr. deLong was the verbage used in this par-
ticular piece of work which eluded to anything of an acre
plus. In conclUsion, Mr. deLong reminded the members that
marketing studies are very expensive and the requirement for
a market study seemingly would discourage a small developer.
Mr. Gregory interjected that what bothered him was the fact
that we do not define the requirement of a market study to
determine whether it is a commercial market study or if it
is a private project or housing project causing a lack of
clarification to exist. It appeared to Mr. Gregory that
what was imperative before a decision could be rendered was
the need to ascertain from Mr. Cannon's department how many
one and five acre parcels are left in overall development
within the community. In addition, it is important to
determine how applicable a market study in the future would
be to those par~!icular size lots.
The members agreed that any intelligent developer would
undertake a feasibility study on his own. The other point
discussed was the circuit court's ruling that marketing
studies cannot be used to deny a rezoning. It was the
general consensus of the Board that much work must be
accomplished on the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, it
was concurred that it is imperative that the the board
be apprised and knowledgeable on a monthly basis of what the
city's capacity is, how much water is available, and how
-27-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
much sewer services can be used. Accordingly, it was noted
that it would be an immense undertaking for the Board to
stay abreast of everything that is mandated.
The meeting continued with a discussion among the board mem-
bers in regards to developers not developing their parcels
and reapplying to the City for approval or extensions. In
response, it was pointed out by Mr. deLong that the deve-
loper probably had reason to get the extension or the e~ten-
sion would not have been rendered, and it is a question for
council to decide when the developer comes in for the exten-
sion. Mr. deLong added that it is council's decision to
approve or disapprove the extension.
Mr. Gregory made a motion to eliminate the marketing study
requirements, seconded by Mr. Wandelt. Motion carried 7-0.
The next items for discussion as suggested by Mr. Cannon
were Items 2 and 3 which were discussed at the workshop
meeting regarding a requirement to have items forwarded
in less than six months.
Mr. Gregory disclosed that it was the consensus of opinion
at the workshop that ninety days would be a reasonable
amount of time and agreed with the motion to stipulate a
time limit requirement not to exceed ninety days.
Mr. Cannon pointed out that we can only submit zonings which
include land-use amendments to the State twice a year. The
sentiment displayed at the workshop seemed to be that if the
rezoning did not require a land-use amendment that it could
be fasttracked down to three to four months.
Mr. Gregory added that he was of the opinion that under nor-
mal circumstances and with the additional help now available
that operations could be completed within a sixty day
timeframe.
In response, Mr. Cannon replied that the City submits appli-
cations to the State twice a year and some developers bring
in their applications at the last minute. Mr. Cannon
further mentioned that if the developers are informed that
-28-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
land-use amendments would be transmitted to the State six
months from now and that we need the applications within
four months, they will come in at midnight of the fourth
month. In conclusion, Mr. Cannon suggested that ninety days
would be the minimum time limit that his department would
require.
The board members were informed that this would mean that
the Planning and Zoning Board and the City Council would
hold their hearings throughout the year as opposed to
grouping them into meetings held twice a year. In reply,
the Board could see no problem with that change.
Mr. deLong pointed out that there is pressure at the state
level on DCA to have the two times a year limitation apply
only to the plans as they are adopted and not to what is in
place now. Mr. deLong concluded that in his opinion there
is much to be finalized in this area.
Mr. Gregory continued by suggesting that it be stipulated that
the applications must be submitted at least ninety days prior
to the review date. Thus, giving the Board the ninety days
forward and backwards.
Mr. Cannon suggested setting the deadline date for the
application to the date of the public hearing and explained
that there would be a requirement that the Planning and
Zoning Board or the City Council schedule hearings within a
certain timeframe after the application is submitted. It
was further pointed out by Mr. Cannon that this would entail
the Board having hearings throughout the year as opposed to
having hearings only twice a year. Mr. Cannon added that it
seemed to be the Board's sentiments that the Planning and
Zoning Board and the City Council be required to hold
hearings not more than ninety days after an application is
submitted. In conclusion, Mr. Cannon apprised the board
that we can only transmit the application to the state twice
a year.
-29-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
City Manager Cheney interjected that those items which
require State review would be addressed during two to three
month periods during the year, and any other additional
items would be addressed on the other two to three periods
of the years. In Mr. Cheney's opinion, this does not
require a Comprehensive land-use plan amendment and could be
a rezoning if it not a planning amendment and those items
can be addressed in three months. Mr. Cheney suggested
setting aside a schedule and not accepting applications or
comprehensive plan amendments until that period of time and
the hearings can be planned. Additionally, Mr. Cheney
stated that if there are many applications submitted during
that three month period before it is submitted to the State,
the City will not accept any additional applications for
that period of time. Consequently, after a year or two, the
applicants will understand what is required. On the other
hand, Mr. Cheney pointed out that if a small amount of plan
amendments are received, the other items will be accepted
along the way.
The meeting continued with Mr. Cheney apprising the board
members that one of the reasons it was stated in the
legislature and in the rules that applications are forwarded
to the state only twice a year is to avoid piece mealing
the Comprehensive Plan every month and then when it is sent
to the State at one time the State can look at what is
happening and verify that the City still has a consistent
hold-together kind of Comprehensive Plan. If the Board
limits ~hemselves to reviewing those Comprehensive Plan
amendments in two separate three month periods, it will
offer an opportunity to observe if those individual amend-
ments are starting to breakdown the fabric of the
Comprehensive Plan. When looking at several at one time or
twice a year, one can get a better picture as to what the
impact and overall comprehensive plan is.
In reference to Paragraph #2, Appendix A-9C6, Chairman Trauger
made note that the wording should be changed to read that
certain times of the year applications would be accepted
which woul.d be on the first and third quarter. In addition,
Mr. Cannon suggested that it be stipulated that it will be
consistent with the adopted City Council policy.
-30-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
In reference to the next item of discussion, Mr. Cannon
stated that Mr. Gregory suggested that the applicant be
guaranteed the right to postpone the public hearing for the
zoning and land-use amendment.
Mr. deLong mentioned that at the workshop the situation was
discussed of an applicant coming in with everything prepared
and seeing an hostile audience, postpones for the sake of
postponing which consumes a lot of time, effort and money.
In response, Mr. Gregory stated that there should be some
adverse circumstances under which the project cannot be pre-
sented at the time and that discretion has to be left to
this particular Board. Mr. Gregory added that there should
be some language which states that the applicant can have a
postponement but not necessarily that he is guaranteed a
postponement, but that at the discretion of the board and by
majority vote the applicant would be permitted to have that
postponement.
Mr. Cheney considered it bad policy for an applicant to give
up his right to a hearing. He further added that an appli-
cant has the right to speculate as to when to submit his
application and come before the Board and whether he gets
support or whether the neighbors are going to oppose his
application. Mr. Cheney hoped that the Board and the City
Council would mantain that right. The City Manager further
pointed out that the Board has the opportunity to allow
postponement when they determine it is a reasonable request.
In conclusion, Mr. Cheney recommended against giving the
applicant the automatic right to have a postponement.
Mr.deLong expressed concern over the verbage which stipula-
tes that the applicant has the right to request a post-
ponement and believed that certain conditions would have to
be stipulated. In resolution of this foreseeable problem,
it was suggested that the verbage which stated that the
applicant has the right to request a postponement should be
changed.
In conclusion, the Board members unanimously agreed to
disregard Item 93 completely and strike it from the record.
The members were in agreement 7-0.
This concluded the discussion on the three changes recom-
mended at the workshop which was held on April 2, 1986.
-31-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
Mr. Pagliarulo moved to accept the Consistency Review as pro-
posed and as stated in the letter of April 2, 1986 as amended,
seconded by Mr. Wandelt. Motion carried 7-0.
Mr. deLong mentioned that there was another item discussed at
the workshop meeting which was overlooked in discussion and
inquired how the Board felt about reapplications only when
there is a 25% reduction either in intensity or traffic
generated. Mr. deLong inquired if everyone felt comfortable
with 25%. He added that under the present situation when an
applicant comes in and gets turned down, he can reapply only
within six months and only if the intensity is 25% less than the
origianl impacts. Mr. deLong questioned if 25% was a large
decrease to grant a rehearing. The Board agreed with the 25%.
At the workshop, it was discussed if an individual comes in and
presents a plan and is rejected, he must then go back and try
to modify his plan and reduce any substantial impacts that
might be obvious by at least 25% An example would be if the
arterials would then be impacted by 25%. The applicant must
then go back and reduce that impact by the 25% in order to be
consistent. One of the questions raised at the workshop was
what would happen to the project if the individual cannot
reduce by 25% or if anyone cannot reduce by 25%, will that say
that all projects in the future would come to a halt.
Mr. Cannon explained that it would mean that the applicant
would have to wait one year in order to reapply. The applicant
could submit an identical application if he desired but he would
have to wait a year. Additionally, Mr. Cannon explained that
it would mean if the applicant wanted to reapply within the
year, he would have to reduce the impacts by at least 25%.
In 14B, Mr. deLong stated we are saying 10% qualifies it as a
substantial change. Mr. Cannon stated that an increase of more
than 10% would require that the applicant go back to the
rezoning procedure. When looking for impacts or a decrease
where an applicant could come in within the year for reapplica-
tion, the City is looking to 25%. There seemed to be a certain
inconsistency existing, and Mr. deLong questioned the rationale
for the 25%. Mr. Cannon stated that a 25% reduction is a
substantial reduction. With the 10%, it was stated if one wants
to intensify it, it should not be a substantial increase in
intensity if he wants to make a minor modification.
-32-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
2. CONSISTENCY REVIEW
Proposed amendments to Section ll-H (13) of
Appendix A, Zoning, which set minimum quan-
titative standards for shared parking alloca-
tions and require that a minimum buffer of 10%
be provided to ensure that availability of
parking spaces at times of peak hour use.
Mr. Golden advised the Board members that these amendments
were drafted based upon a request by a certain member of the
City Council to provide :a buffer for shared parking par-
ticularly in reference to situations at shopping centers such
as the Forum and the Bavarian House Restaurant in order to
insure that there is sufficient parking available at times
of peak-hour use and to provide some control over the
granting of shared parking allocations so as not exceed the
available parking at any given time. The amendments call
for basically two changes. Firstly, the 10% buffer and
secondly, quantitative data that would provide for the mini-
mum standards within the report including field studies,
traffic counts, adjustments to Seasonal variations and esti-
mates for peak park~ing based on data furnished by the Urban Land
Institute or some other recognized land-planning and design
organization. This would cover every shared parking
situation such as the shared parking allocation approved
previously for the First United Methodist Church which would
fall outside the realm of this proposed amendment. With
regard to the situation .with the First United Methodist
Church, Mr. Golden indicated that they had two principle
uses that occurred at two different times whereas with the
shopping center there exists two or more uses where there is
significant overlap between the occurrences of those uses.
This concluded the comments by Mr. Golden concerning the
nature of this amendment.
Mr. Winter expressed concern over the parking situation in
the parking lot of the new restaurant, Donovan's, which is
planned to open in. the near future, and the theatre which is
located nearby. Mr. Golden advised that the owners of the
shopping center will be presenting modifications for the new
Publix store and as part of that modification they are
seeking a revised shared parking allocation which has been
submitted for review this month. The Planning Department
-33-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
reviewed the traffic impact analysis and shared parking
study and discovered that there were some discrepancies in
certain issues that were not addressed. Mr. Golden apprised
the members that this is being revised and that one of the
issues included the Donovan's Cafeteria. The Planning
Department has recommended that the owner reevaluate the
uses of the shopping center and incorporate those in the
revised shared parking allocation.
There being no further comments, John Pagliarulo moved
that the Consistency Review dated March 19, 1986 as presented
be approved, seconded by Mr. deLong. Motion carried 7-0.
Adoption of Proposed Citizen Participation
Program - Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and
Appraisal Procedure.
Mr. Cannon advised that the State Statute which establishes
the local government Comprehensive Planning Act also
requires that part of the evaluation and appraisal report
provides that we adopt the Citizen Partipation Program. The
report before the Board sets forth the logic for the City's
participation in this program. Basically, the provisions of
this program is that citizen participation will occur at the
Planning and Zoning Board workshops and at the Planning and
Zoning Board and City Council hearings with the evaluation
and appraisal report. What the Planning Department is pro-
posing to do is to notify by mail all of the condominium
home owner associations in the city informing them that the
evaluation and appraisal report is available for inspec-
tion and informing these organizations what it is about.
The Planning Department will also be sending a letter to the
civic and social organizations in the community giving them
the same information. In addition, the Planning Department
will also be providing legal ads in the paper and part of
that legal ad would have to include a map showing all
of the areas in the city for which land development regula-
tions are proposed to be changed. The ad must run at least
one week prior to the Planning and ZOne Board and the City
Council hearings. This would be the mechanism Used by which
the City will notify the citizens and attempt to incite
their interest and input.
-34-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
Mr. Gregory inquired what was the legal liability for par-
ticipation by the voter or the residents as a whole in the
community in relation to a project that may not geographi-
cally effect them. Mr. Cannon responded by stating that under
the new State Statute everyone in the community has the right
to participate. Mr. Cannon concluded by stipulating that the
Board needed to adopt this program at this meeting.
There being no objection to acceptance of the Citizen
Participation Program - Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and
Appraisal Procedure, Mr. deLong moved to accept the program,
seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo. The motion carried 7-0.
Status of Meetinqs to be Held by the Planninq
and Zoning Board
Mr. Cannon advised the Board members that a schedule must be
established for workshops and the public hearings for the
upcoming months.
The Planning and Zoning Board was apprised that they are
designated as the Land Planning Agency and consequently they
are obligated to review the Evaluation and Appraisal Reports
and transmit a recommendation to the governing body.
Mr. deLong referenced that in the material that was handed
out by Mr. Cannon indicated a Councilman will be seating
with the Planning and Zoning Board as the LPA when these
hearings are conducted.
Mr. Cannon apprised the Board that there would be six
rezoning applications and the evaluation and appraisal
reports.
The following schedule was planned and agreed upon by the
Board members:
May 20, 21, 22
P & Z Workshop Meeting
Evaluation and Appraisal
Report
4:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
-35-
MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
April 8, 1986
June 4, 5, 12
June 16 and 23
June 10
Public Hearings
6 Rezoning Applications
Land Use Amendments
7:30 P,M.
Council Chambers
Public Hearings
Comprehensive Plan
Evaluation and Appraisal
Reports
7:30 P.M.
Council Chambers
Planning and Zoning Board
Regular Meeting
7:30 P.M.
Council Chambers
Mr. Cannon concluded by advising the board members that
notices will be prepared and forwarded to each of the mem-
bers apprising them of the dates and times of these sche-
duled hearings.
E. COMMENTS BY THE MEMBERS
No comments presented.
F. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Board,
Chairman Trauger moved to adjourn, and the meeting adjourned
at 11:15 P.M.
Carol Ann Brown
Recording Secretary
(Four Tapes)
-36-
MEMORANDUM
April 1, 1986
TO:
Mr. Jim Golden
Ptannihg Department
FROM: Tom Clark
City Engineer
RE: Abandonment Request for Northeast Drive-
All Utility Companies except Florida Public Uti~ties
have an interest in this right-of_way..~
The right-of-way has an improved roadway, in ~ ~
" ,oune=.. words
"paved , and functions as a connecting street fo~ which
would otherwise create an excessively long block~
Predicated on the above it is my recommendation that the
abandonment be denied.
TAC: ck
At tach.
CC:
City Clerk
~.Tom Clark
k~r. Perr%'~_~ Cessna
--1
Sue Kruse
Deputy
BJECT:. Application for Paz ~{eeting of 4/8/86
Attached P!ease'__fi~d-a copy Of ~._$~ree~"-abandonm~t application
-submitted by .Salvatore Trantolo.
Please review and advise of. your recommendation fc~ approval
.. or disapproval in~-aCco~d~nce With Section 22-40 (!~}-(1) of the
-Thank you,
Sue Kruse
RETURN TO ;.- ' '"' ' '
SIGNED *. /
:PLY I am retu_--n~ng the application o~ o~.,, .... '- - ~
.'.=~ .... ~ _= ...... == ~ ~=~v=~ore Tran~o reques~g -
~~=~= u~ ~.~.~rlve ~ Harbor Es~e- ~__t_ '~ . ., .
~Ot be abandon~ for several ....
reasons :first, t~ere'~ is a ~" ~ter 1=
~g No.~o.Road ~ter l~es and secondlv_ther~ ~ ~-. ,,,.~r~i~. . . ~ne
~nt ~nn~g east & west Which serves ~ter to a-ll::~h= ~, ._ ~n xn ~n ~se-
~ ~ds. ~n-prder tq a~ndon this N.E.drive, the 're ~
= .. ned and all - ~ , .~ : _ ~ . r !lne
....... ~-:=u:-uo. ~n~ ~Ont of the lots-
· both R'o~o.R~. at the applicant's expense.This'would-~tail !iterally
~ousands of do!~s. ' _. -
SIGNED ~_,,'_.-~-V--'-t
:tach.a/s -above
)ATE: .Mar6h 24,1986
PERSON ADDRESSED' RETURN THIS COPY TO SENDER
~erry A.~
Gr~c -
~2944
Hartford. CT 0610~
CALL TOLL FREE:1-SOO-243-5250
Mr. Carmen Annunziato
Planning Director
REPLY MESSAGE
Fold At (.~) TO Fit Grayarc Window Envelope # Ew10P -' : '.~ -' - ,
FROM '
Su'e.- Kruse
Deputy City Clerk
REORDER ITEM # F269
; Application for P&Z Meetinq of 4/8/86
DAT~: 3/14/86
Attached please find a copy of a street abandonment application
submitted by Salvat.ore Trantolo.
Please review and advise of your recommenda_~ion for ~pproval
or disapproval in accordance with Section 22-40(a)~I) of the
code. - - -
Thank
PLEASE REPLY TO - ~ '
- Sue Kruse
It is the Planning Department's recommendation that :~h~'.~e.quest
& r the abandonment
of Northeast Drive be denied for the following reasons:
1. The subject local street is an improved right-of2x, ay'an~-as such should be
considered as a functional part of the City's roadway system.
2. While this local street in itself is not essential in regard to neighborhood
traffic flow and circulation, abandonment of this right-o£&Way may set a precedent
for the future abandonment of the remaining links between North Road and South Road
which may result in the occurrence of such problems.
~EPLY
Item i F2~9 (D %;/heeler Groul~ lac. 1979
'. MEMORANDUM
To: Ca~-~a~Annun~ia~0_.: - Planning Director
Date: ~rch 31,- Ig86
Subject: i~B'review.- First United Methodist Church
Our on~v ~ition of approval for' the project is that the ultimate
size (~--~)_of the proposed trees be minimized so as t° facilitate
line repa~if neceSsary.
lw
xc: file
Peter V. Mazzella
Utility Engineer
MEMORANDUM
Carmen S.' Annunziato
Lt. Dale S. Hammack
April 2, 1986
First United MethOdist Church
As I advised in the'T.:R.B, meeting of 1 April 1986,~ a st~p si'gn
needs to be erected at the West exit onto N.W. 1st St,r~eet.
Respectful ly,
Lt. Dale S. Hammack
DH:as
MEMORANDUM
April 2, 1986
TO:
Chairman and Members '
Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Carmen S. Annunziato
Planning Director
RE: First United Methodist Church_- Staff Com~,~ents
-Please be advised of the Planning Department,'s comments in
connection with the above-referenced request~ for sit~ plan
approval:
1. Interior one-way arrow striping to be removed from~ite plan
to allow for two-way traffic flow. In addition, two ~ay arrow
striping is to be provided at parking tot driveway ~ N.W. 1st.
Street.
2. Dumpster requires 10'X 10' concrete pad ~and 6' concr~te block
wall on 3 sides, with stucco finish to match building.
Carmen S"[' A ~~
nnun~ato -
/lat
MEMORANDUM
Carmen Annunziato, Director
Planning
Kevin J. Hallahan
F~rester/Horticulturist
Lot
This memo is in reference to the landscape_.Plan su~m~tt-ed
for the above project'. -- ~
1. The interior parking lot landscaping is defic~e~ut
approximately 200 sq. feet. This can-be accommodated
by placing a landscape island between the par~ stalls
with the excess pavement distances - ,73 parking spaces
are required in the lot to meet Code. --
2. Ail interior parking lot trees must have a cle~kr trunk
of 5' at time of planting.
3. All landscape islands should be sodded~and irri~ated.
4. Have the architect see me about the ~r~eS listed to
be used above the utility easement. (see Uti!~tu
Department memo)". .....
Kevin J.' Hallahan ~:-~--
KJH: ad
STAFF COMMENTS
MASTER PLAN
Utilities D.ei~artment: See attached memo.-
Recreation D~oartment:
Irrigation system to be repaired
when median cut is provided on
Charter Drive. -
- MEMORANDUM
To: Camcen~Annu-nz¢~-to - Planning Director
Subject-:.. TRB re~e~'~.i_ Manor Care, Inc.
Our only condition ;of approval is to -
bumtd, ln~ts water sexy .... - - provide a separate tap for the
" " ' ~ervmce, wlEa the meter
T.he.deve21~perwitl~'_be res~onsib-- ~-lo.?.ate at the property line.
Pmpzng. . .__; ~ *= ~o~ provzalng the 3" meter and b~ass
lW
Peter V. Mazzella
Utility Engineer
MEMORANDUM
23 March 1986
TO:
FROM:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Zoqing Board
Carmen S. Annunziato
Planning Director
Boynton Beach Park of Commerce - Master Plan
Amendment ./
INTRODUCTION
On January 21, 1986 the Planning Department transmitted a
packet of materials which taken together constituted a
request for an amendment to the Development Order which
approved the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce (BBPOC),
Development of Regional Impact. Copies of these. ~mendment
packages were also forwarded to the Mayor and C~dil' the
City Manager, the Technical Review Board, the City Attorney,
the Library, the Chamber of Commerce, the Tre~e Coast
Regional Planning Council and the State Department of
Community Affairs, Bureau of Resource Management.
The amendments requested to the Development Orde~ which
approved the BBPOC (Ordinance No. 84-51 copy at~ched) are
as follows:
1. Section_#3: The Amendment apPlicatio~Procedure
and the subsequent proceedings have been-dulyc~nducted
pursuant to the provisions of Florida Statutes,' Chapter 380.
2. Section #4 subsection (1): paragraph ~(C$ shall be
added as follows:
(C) Boynton Beach Park of Commerce ADA, -Amended
Master1986. Site Development Plan Submitted~ 21 January
3. References throughout the Development Order shall
be revised to conform to the Amended Master Site Development
Plan, as approved. Such revisions shall be made in the.
interest of consistency and clarity.
As a part of the Master Plan review process,
additional sections of the Development Order may be
recommended for amendment by the City's Technical Staff.
PROCEDURE , ~.
Procedurally, the amendment request t°'~i~he.aPproved
development order is governed by Section 7 of Appendix A -
Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances whiCh'-~stablishes Planned
Industrial Development Districts and by-~Chapt~r 3.80.06(19),
Florida Statutes for a determination of a substantial
deviation. _ .
As previously reported, the City coUncil must conduct a
public hearing at which a determination of whether or not
the proposed change requires further development of regional
impact review. If no further review is required~ the City
Council shall issue an amended development order which
this instance requires the passage of an ordinance which
amends the original development order. If a determination is
made that the proposed change requires.further development
of regional impact review, the review shall beconducted
only on those aspects of the development order required to
be changed. The above-mentioned public"hearing shall
receive a'fifteen (15) days public notice following the
passage of thirty (30) days but not more~han f~rty-five
~c ~e~f~t r~i~t ~f~- ~en .d~ ~nt~ ~mat.eria!~s. It is
...... ~ .... ~ ~u~u~± will COnduct its hearing
on Aprl± El, 1986.. ~ ~
This amendment procedure will require ~iiO~e_time change to
our development regulations. For non,~evalopment of
regional impact planned industrial dev~iOpments, the City
Council must make a finding related to.~h~-degree of change;
that is, whether or not it is substantival, and then,' the
Planning and Zoning Board approves, approves with
modifications, or denies the request. ~!n this instance, the
City Council must approve any change. Therefore= the
Planning and Zoning Board must act in an advisory.capacity
to the Council, as the. State Statutes prevail over City
ordinances.
LAND USE - .
The master plan submitted by Deutsch Ireland as a part of
the amendment package substantially implements the
requirements of the approved DeveloPment Order, thus
supporting a recommendation that the changes requested are
not substantial. The mix in acres of land use as-currently
approved and as proposed is as follows:
APPROVED
PROPOSED
Commercial 27.6 27.0
Office 128.9 133.1
Club 0 3.4
Industrial 254.7 197.6
Lakes, wetlands,
open space 82.2 104.9
Roads 46.5 33.9
Sand Pine Preserve 0 40.0.
TOTAL 539.9 539.9
INCRE~.~E/(DECREASE)
(2.2) %
NA
'27.6
The decrease in acres devoted to Industrial land/uses is
replaced primarily by the Development Order re~rement to
set aside 40 acres for a sand pine preserve, an~_for
increased lakes, wetlands and open spacE. Alsm, the
reconfiguration-of the site resulted in.'-the nee~ for fewer
acres devoted to roads as noted in the~ table .above,
TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD COMMENTS
Concerning Technical~Review Board comm~'~tSj th~ SZRB met on
February 18, 1986 to review the plans 'and documents
submitted. Also present at this
meeting~.was the aPplicant,
Mr. George Zimmerman, Director of Planning for D=-~tsch
Ireland Properties. At this meeting and at' subsequent
meetings, atmost all 'areas of concern were conclusively
~addresse.d either through explanation, amendments to the
proposed plan or'agreements zn concept;"however, two areas
of concern.still remain.
One area of concern invoIves the applicants desire to locate
five commercial sites (21 acres) plus a Club (3~4) acres
along the south side of N.W. 22nd Avenue. The~proposed
arrangement of commercial land uses seems to. change the
character of the-Planned Industriai'Development-a~d N.W.
22nd Avenue. Instead of projecting to the public an image
of an industrial/office park, the public will-be exposed to
a commercial strip. This is clearly in opposition to the
intent stated in the Planned Industrial Development District
Regulations which reads as follows: .~
"The purpose of this district is~ provide a zoning
classification for light industrial development that
will better satisfy current.demands.for light
industrial zoned lands by encouraging development which
will reflect changes in the technology of land
development and relate thedeveloPment..~f !and to the
specific site and to conserve .natUral .amenities.,,
The desired location for commercial'activities~.m~y also be
in conflict with Comprehensive Plan policies which reject
strip commercial development. Therefore, the
commercial/retail sites should be considered to-b_e an
adjunct to the light industrial, office, and research and
development land uses, and should be relocated to a less
prominent site within the Park
The second area of concern involves the'proposed treatment
of water distribution in the Planned IndUstrial Development.
Specifically, more detailed information_on the-proposed
water uses will be required before final-designs are
accepted, as noted in the attached MemQtandumfr6m Pete
Mazzella, Utility Engineer. ~.?~..
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL .~-~i~
As previously noted, the Treasure'CoaS~/~giCn~l'~!anning
Council is a party to the amendment if concerns
are raised by the requested amendmen C~i! must
notify the City that it will be ~e City
Council public hearing. In this re~ has
raised a question concerning the
prop 4~0_-acre scrub pine
forest preserve as noted in the attached~letter from the
Council to George Zimmerman, and as noted,."?thecouncil will
be represented at the City Council's pUblic.hearing to
present its concerns. ~.~ ~ .... -
4
RECOMMENDATION
The Technical Review Board recommends to the P!~nning an~
Zoning Board and the City Council tha~..a finding~of no
substantial change be found with,respect to .the requested
changes to the BBPOC Development Order,. This recommendation
is based on the agreements reached with the applicant as
stated in his letter of February.28, 1986 (s~e attached).
Furthermore, it is recommended that the app~ic~ redesign
his master plan and place hiscommerclai' ~ land ~uses in a
cluster along the central~NE/SW collector road south of NW
22nd Avenue.
/bks
CARMEN S. ANNUNZ~7~TO
MEMORAND UM
TO: File
FROM: Carmen S. Annunziato, Planning ~Director
RE: _Boynton Beach Park of Commerce Master'-Plan Modification-
The list which follows constitutes the Pl~hning Depa~.~T_ment,s
comments on the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce M6dified Master
Plan.
1. The location of five commercial Sites (21 ~cres) or
78% of all Park commercial acreage, Plus ~he proposed
club along N.W. 22nd Avenue seems to change the
character of the Planned Industrial Development and
N.W. 22nd Avenue. Instead of projecting to the public
an image of an industrial park, the public wiil be
exposed to a commercial strip.
The intent of the Planned Industrial DeveloDment (PID)
zoning regulations is to provide
"a zoning classification forL:light ~dustriat
development that will better-satisfy-current
demands for light industri%i zoned lands .... -
In this regard, the commercial/re~i1 site should be
considered to be an adjunct to the'Llight industrial
office and research and devetopmen{:.'.indus~ial land
%lses. .
It is reco~ended that the co~er~i' land ~ses and the
club located on N.W, 22nd Avenue b~'~Zrelocatea in a
cluster along the central N.E., S-~;--collactor road,
south of N.W. 22nd Avenue.
2. The applicant should explore the need for
loading/unloading facility for aCCess to~-rail service.
3.areasThe master, plan 'should delineate al! required greenbelt
Page Two.
The right-of-way width for all interior roads should
be shown as well as a roadway cross-section depicting
sidewalks, bikepaths, traffic lanes, me-~i~n, and turn
lanes. -'
An Environmental Impact Analysis schedu!$ should be
submitted for public review and analysis.
/bks
Carmen S. AnnL~q~iato
MEMORANDUM
TO: Carmen Annunziato - Planning Director
DATE: February 12, 1986
SUBJECT: Amendment toBoynton Beach Park of Commerce DRI
Please note the following comments regarding the amended plans_for this project.
Water Distribution: ..
1.) Water mains within cul-de-sac ;~ust be' looped~ with two additional gate
valves installed on each line to regulate f~w.'
2.) Delete the 10" diameter water main section bAtween~par~e!s G 18 - I, and
G 20 - I, and reroute the line along the canal so as to loop the 8" line
to the east of parcel G 21 - I. Change said 8" line =~o i0".
3.) Plan for 1000' maximum distance between main line valves.
4.) Add a 10" gate valve at the southeast branch of the i0;~ X .16" cross on
N.W. 22 Ave.
5.). 30-foot wide water and sewer easements will be requirad~ for all water
lines along canals, between parcels, or otherwise not in Rights-of-Way.
Ail construction, and the planting of trees and shrubs must be prohibited-
(by deed restriction) within these easements.
6.) To insure adequate fire-flow, we request that certificates of occupancy
(C.O.'S) be withheld until the major loops (!6" and !O") are completed.
For those units north of N.W. 22 Ave., the loop from~gh Ridge Rd. to
N.W. 22 Ave., and'thence to Congress Ave. mu~-f'~be completed. For those
units south of N.W. 22 Ave. to receive C~O.'S, the loop aaross the C-16
canal, along High Ridge Rd. to N.W. 22 Ave.~;~and thenz~.westward to Con-
gress. Ave. must be completed. - .~
Sewage Collection and Transmission:
1.) 30' wide water and sewer easements will be n~ded for the force main
between the E-4 canal and the drainage lakes,-~the forcemsin between
parcels G 18 - I and G 20 - I, and the gravity s~wer between parcels
G 11 - RD and G 13 - RD. Ail construction, a~d the p!ant~g of trees
and shrubs must be prohibited (by deed restriCti0nk~witb~n these ease-
ments.
2.) Indicate how the following parcels will be served by gravity sewer;
W2-O, W3-O, W4-O, W5-O, W19-O, and W20-O
general for botk water and sewer:
The eompr~ssed timetable for utility development of this property will meces-
sitate the~_i_~ng of-a'"SPeciat inspector by this Departmemt. Provision must be
provide sufficient funds to cover the added expense of
The funds are to be provided prior to construction.
xc: file.
Perry A. Cessna
Director of Utilities
MEMORANDUM
TO:-'Mr. Peter L. Cheney, City Manager
RE:
Boynton Beach Park of Commerce:
I. Land Exchange Proposal
II. Median and Right-of-wayMaintenance
*February 12, 1986
I. LAND EXCHANGE PROPOSAL: ,_ ~
The following is recommended in regard to~the~proposed laud exchange:
1. The City shall receive twent~ (20) acres"!!:0f,~.land exclusive of the
wetland and Sand Pine preserve areas.
The additional land to comprise the 20a~Site..d~s =ecommended
to be the W20-0 tract, lying south of the esmgnatad park site
and bordering the E-4 Canal.
2. The land shall be of such quality, configuration, a-~ rmpography,
to allow for proper design and use of the'total 20 acre site for
active and passive recreational purposes.
3. The Boynton Beach Park of Commerce developer Shalt ~rmvide the
necessary fill~'and grade work to insure that eleva~i:ons are
adequate to allow for total site use, including adequate drainage
and/or water retention.where necessary
II. MEDIAN AND RIGHT OF-WAY MAINTENANCe:
The revised master plan modification increases~the maintenance
responsibilities for the site as center medians have bean added to
imternal roadways..
Attached is a.report from John Wildner, Park ~erin~end~_nt, detailing
the anticipated impact upon Park Division ma~ntenance~parations.
It should be noted ~at our total costs would'!~%eed tP~ $36,000
estimate, for this site as assumption of maintenance wil! require the
hiring 6~ a full time three-man crew and acq% ~ahicles and
equipment resulting in a cost to exceed $50
I would remommend that strong consideration be/~Ven tO requiring the
developer 'to provide~for maintenance of all internal roa~ray medians
and .rights-of-way with the City assuming maintenance'~responsibiltties
of N. W. 22nd Avenue only
Charles__ C. 'Frederick, Director-
Recreation & Park Department
CCF:pb ·
Attachment
CC:
Joh~Wi!dmer
Mark Thompso~
MEMORANDUM_
Charles Frederick. Director
Recreation and Park Department
John Wildner
Parks Superintendent
12 Februarg '$6
Maintenance impact
Bognton BEach Park Of .Commerc
As 9ou requested, I have reviewed the Masterplan for 'Bou~ton Beach
Park Of Commerce as it pertains to additional maintenance respon-
sibilitu for the Parks Division. ,.The followi-ng information is
provided: ·
1. There are approx'imatelg four miles of landscaped median
shown on the Masterplan. This would, compare to thc- 3~
'miles of median on- U.S. #1 currently maintained in ~ day
and a half by a three man crew with the assistanc~ ~of an
equipment operator for half a dag. .'~
Agreements already made with previous owners of th-~m develop-
ment indicate the citg would also be responsible ~f~r R.O.W.
maintenance on both s~des of the roadway. This would be
very unusual for a P.I.D. or subdivision. N6rmal~g;'. owners
are responsible for R.O.W. maintenance in front of Their prop-
erty. The Masterplan shows these R.O.'W. areas to .b~ heavily
landscaped. I estimate that it would normally tak~ another
2~ days to maintain these side sections with the assistance
of an equipment operator for half a da9 ....
The Masterplan indicates several hundred trees to be planted
in the R.O.W. areas which would have to be trimmed~..a.t least
once a 9ear (two weeks for a two man crew).
.4. The large amount of irrigated areas will require .~ increase
in our Sprinkler Supply Account and in a heavg commitment
, in time b~ our irrigation m~intenance crew..~ _
5. 3n summary, I would estimate that it will 'take a ~ee man
crew four da~s-each week (during the growin~'-:~se.ason~ to
maintain these median and other R.O.W. areas and r~.uire the
assistance of other crews for specialized .'.wor~..
personnel costs for landscape maintenance ~-~s~ estima-~ed at
.$.36,000 per uear...
An alternative may be for the developer to form a Prope=-ty Owners
'Associat.i_on and charge a landscape maintenance fe~ for ?rivate
as well as public property. 'A single landscape maintenm~uce con-
tractor.~.or-the whole development should ~rov~de a common park-
like atmosphere to ~he whole area and do it on an economical
basis that might not be to~ much more than each owner would pay
for their own individual propertg.
hn
MEMORANDUM
Mr. Carmen Annun~ato
Planning Director
February 1l, i986
Lt. McGarry
Police Dept.
· u,J,: Boynton Beach. Park of
Coranerce Mas~'~r Plan l~.~odification
I would like more information supplied in reference to the ]o~tion Of
Nigh Ridge Road intersection and N.[~ 22 Ave.
How close will this be in re]ation to the proposed intercham.qe of i-95 and
N.W. 22 Ave?
How much area is available for stacking in the west bound lane of N.W. 22 Ave?
What is the proposed, traffic f]ow from Flfgh Ridge ROad both North and South
of N.W. 22 Ave?
W4.as
RICHARD S. WALKE
DIRECTOROF PUBLIC WORKS, Boynton Beach
PLANNING D!qF~R: .
February 12, 1986
Re: Boynton Beach Park
o'f Commerce
I would .like ~ suggest- "Compactors', be used to the u-tmost in this
long term prQjsct. Time and money saving would be substantival.
TO:
SUBJ £CT:
6arden Rnnunziato
March 26. 1 986
letter fro~ 0eutsch Ireland Propert~;~:-da(ed Fe-bruar9 28.1986
Oe basicallv agree ~ith fhe responses thaf Mr;:-: Zinaernan ~as node to
regard&ng Zten R(S) under ~ater d&str~but~on connen(s. ~e. ~ouZd ~ke to
stress that the f&na~ spacing and Zocat&on of ~n-~&ne valves &s subjec(
to .the submission o¢ de'toiled Plans. The number of perso~s being serv~
b9 ~ section of ~a~er ~in ~s of pr~rV concer.n ~hen de~e~nining ~he
~ppropr~a~e locaiion for ~o~on valves. ReZg~ng s-o~e~'9 on the nu~be
of connections to be served can resul~ in deprivation o¢ service to ~an
people during an outage.
Therefore. quite a bi[ ¢~ore detail on ~he faciZities bei~ served is
needed before ~e can agree ~o a final design fo.~.~he !o~ion of
· ~o~ion v~ves ~n the water d~s~zbu~on ~'~e~. ~e ~ ~h~ ~ou
relay our con~ents ~o Deutsch Zreland Properties~ -
Since~
U ti 1 i t ~-;E~g& neet
~.. : :: . . '
M E M ORA N D UM
TO~
~n~. Carmen S. Annunz~ato
Director of Planning
Octo-D~er 23, 1984
-RE: Boynton Beach Park of' Commerce ' _i
The approval of this development as related to-*h '
~elr lift
station configuration should specify that at: '~"-~e t'..~te of
planning the first phase east of the E~'4 Canal, ~%at the
developer's engineers will present to the City,a-study to
show whether lift station ~3 on their master p~ can be
~" ...... deepened and/or relocated in such a mahner as ~ el~inate
~-::~: .... ~": '~entlift. stati°n ~2 for. .... the north ~ast section of t~,e-d~velop-
tne~ scBase~ u~on a re~~-': ~-'- ;,' ::.~ '~: , ,4 ..... , - ~, ----
Perry A. ssna, '
Director of. ~Utillti~s
apt
-~ ?~ STAFF CO~-~ENTS
Engineering,.Departm~n.t:
Utilities D~artment.~
See attached memo.
No structures within easements!
TO: ~' Carmen Annunziato
City Planner
FRO~i_ Tom Clark
City Engineer
March 28, 1986
Preliminary Plat, Boynton Lakes Plat No. 3-C
1. Street Names should be added to Paving
Plans.
& Drainage
TAC:ck.
Tom C1 ark
Canuen Aununziato
City PI armer
FROM
Bob Donovan
Chief Plan Reviewer
FOLD
La=Plant-Adair Office & Warehouses
.........................................._. -__DATE:_4/1/86
Upon review of the above mentioned site plan, '-be advised of the
following:
1. Office area limited to 25% of area in building.
2. propertyC°r~rete walkline, needs to be extended through'drive to i~e north
3. ~mier & sewer flow rates calculated by Fla~Registe~ed Engineer to
be ~tted to Utility Dept. & reviewed before suhnitiing to
Building tla~t. -'
Thema~ seem~ to be a conflict with your dri.~ :approae~
d~ive approamh of the property to the northOf
the
-:,;-~. %._
ED:bh
SIGNED
PLEASE REPLY TO
Bob Donovan
SIGNED
MEMORANDUM
March 31, 1986
TO:
FROM:
Mr. Carmen Annunziato
City Planner
William V. Flushing.
Deputy City Engineer ./
La Plant Adair, Office and Warehousing
Comments;
1. Drainage calculations are .not correct. (a) Calculation of the Hydraulic
C°nd-~i~y not
shown and value used appears to be incorrect.
(b) Exfiltration hrench formula shown is not
co r re c t.
(c) One hour design rainfall should be 2.8 inches.
2. More information and details are required.for "Hard
Pack" area by building #3 This cannot be.a source
of-dust. '
Exfiltration trench detail does
not show ~ter cloth
WVF: ck
~cc: Thomas Clark, City Engineer
W
MEMORANDUM
To: Carmen Annunziato-Planning Director
Date: Marc.h 31, 1986
Subject: TRB review - La Plante and-Adair
1) Re-'routewater main to avoid yard stock a'r~eai
2) Relocate hydrant near building 3, and add an addit:Sx~nal
hydrant to improve coverage. ~'
3) Relocate service connection for building 3'and outlet for
truck wash. Both are to be metered. Meters larger tlnan
2" must be provided by developer.
4) Provide detail on aggregate trap.
5) Due to inadequate cover and choice of materials, most. of the
gravity sewer must be private. An additi~hal manhol~-m, ust
be placed at the right-of-way line along~i.~.iindustr=~i Avenue
to mark the limit of the City's responsib~t-it¥., T~new sec-
tion downstream of said manhole must mee~tt'of tb~e City's
construction st~andards. ~?~..~ . .
xc: file
MEMORANDUM
Carmen Annunzi ato
Lt~ Dale S. Hammank
April 2,~ 1986
'[a~lant AdaSr, ~. Industrial Ave.~ ..
As I advised in the T.R.B. meeting of 1 April 1986, I recommend that
one way markings and signs be installed on the East side of-the property
to indicate direction of traffic flow.
The
lighting
is excessive
and
should
be placed on the perimeter directed
inward.
DH:as
Respectful ly,
Lt. Dale S. Hammack
Police Dept.
TO:
FROM:
SUBJ:
MEMORANDUM
2 April 1986-
Carmen Annun ato .
Planning Director- "
Rick Walke
Public Works Director
La Plant-Adair
1 DumpSter locations do not provide Public Womks room to
maneuver trucks - 27' is not-enough room.as vehicle is 40
in length. ,
2 Contact Public Works for dumpster a~t~s and: Pads.
Ric
/lat
MEMORANDUM
2 .April 1986
TO:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Zoning Board
FROM: Carmen S. Annunziato
Planning Director -? ~
RE: La-Plant ~ Adair Office/Warehouses _ Staf~ Com~ent~
Please be advised of the Planning Department,s co~ents in connection
with the above-referenced request for site plan approval.
!. Provide dumpster pad detail showing required 10' x I0' concrete
pad and required screening on three sides (6' concrete block
wall with stucco, finish to match buildings).
2. Parking lot regulations require high pressure sodium-lighting
with a minimum average of one foot candle - mercury vapor
lighting is not acceptable.
3. Lighting details to be provided.
4. Lot Parking Regulations. spaces to be double-striped as required by the_ Parking
5. Provide handicapped' parking space detail. "
6. MoVing. . operation is to-be confined to an area on-site~=~hat is a
minimum of 300 feet from the residentially-zoned property on the
west side of West Industrial Avenue
regUlations, as required by the M-1 zoning
7. Truck wash drain connection to stormwater syste~ to h
from drainage plan. .. .... ~e removed
8.to Details permitting, provided on individual plan shee=s mu~t correspond= prior
CARME~ S. ANNUN~IA~O
/bks
MEMORANDUM
Carmen Annunziato~ Director Pl anni ng
Kevin j. H ~
. ala ahan
Forester/Hort~ cul turi S t
This mem~ is in':'reference to. the landscape plan
for the above prOjeCt~
1.
Landscap~'ng--should be provided adja'cent to the
shown on the site plan.
3 April ' 86
..... "~-~ C r~'~': .-
Si to Plan
-
Adair Office & Warehouse
submi t~ed
~ J Hail.~han
KJH:ad
STAFF CO~4MENTS
WEST INDUSTRIAL PARK
SITE PALN
Buildin~ Departmeht:
Enginee-~ng Department:
Utilities Department:
Police D~partmen~:
Public ~ks Department:
Planninq Departmet:-
Forester/Horticulturalist:
See attached memo.
See attached memo.
See attached memo.
See attached memo.
Relocate dumpster pads to
correspond to direction of
traffic flow.
See attached memo.
See attached memo.
FOL. D )
Carmew~:ii/to- ,:
City Planner
Lot 14, Boynton Industrial Park
Bob Donovan
Chief Plan Reviewer
Upon review of the above mentioned site plan, please be ad~.ised of the
roi 1 owir~:
1. Office area limited to 25% of area in building.
2. Water & sewer flow rates calculated by Fla;'-Registered-Engineer to
be submitted to Utility Dept. & reviewed before suh-niiiing to Bldg. Dept.
· 3. There seems to be a conflict of your-drive ~aPProach w:ith the drive
approach of the_.property to the south of y06~:
ED: bh
PLEASE REPLY TO ~
REPLY
SI(
Bob Donovau
TO:
F
"' :: M E M O R A N D U M
Mr. Carmen Annunziato
City Planner
Tom C1ark..
City .Engineer
March 28, 1'986
Site Plan, Lot 14, North Boynton Industrial Park
· Commen~s:
Additional elevations are required
P~oposed /
existing and
2. Cross-sections of the construction are required.
3.~eqnirediDetails and'dimensions of the lanscaped areas are
C'~mLrb._ locations and details are required.
~eadwallare required, details and '~nformation for inlet structures
TAC:ck
Tom Clark
To:
.... MEMORANDUM
Caz-~en ~Annun.~z~iato_Planning Director
Date: Marnh 31,-1985
Subject: ~RB revi'~ i_ Lot
14-Boynton Industrial Park
We recommend 'the f~l~owing changeJ'to the subject plans;
1)~cormR~°catedrain.manh°le I to'a ~higher. elevation, away from the
2) Loop water-line.along north end of site, and add fire
hydrants to provide adequate coverage.
3) Provide water services for each warehouse bay.
4) 'Use ductile iron pipe where sanitary sewer crosses within
18,~ of water or storm drainage.
We suggest the engineer meet with us to review the layout for utilities
at this site. ~ .
lw
xc: file
Peter V. Mazzelta
Utility Engineer
Carmen S. Annunziato
MEMORANDUM
.Apri 1 2,~ 198~
Lt. Dale S. Hammack
Lot 14 Boyn%.on Industrial Park.
As I advised in the Technical Review Board ~m,eeting of 1 Aprl'q 19r86~-, I
recommend that one way signs be erected on ~ne ~ast side and-the North
side of the property to indicate the direction of tr. affic flow. I also
recommend that the exterior lighting be pole mounted perimeter lighting
activatedIndustrial by Ave. photocell. A stop sign needs to be erected ~at ~ch, e exit onto
DH: as
Respectful ly,
Lt. Dale S. Hamm~dl~
Pol ice Department
MEMO RAND UM
2 April 1986
TO:
Chairman and Members
Planning and Zoning Board ·
FROM: Carmen S. Annunz±ato
~ Planning Director
RE: West Industrial Park~ Staff Comments-;/j-'-
Please be advised of the Planning Department,s
with the above-referenced request for site plan approval°.
1. Provide dumpster pad detail showing required 10' x I0~- concrete
pad and required screening on three sides (6' concrete block
wall with stucco finish to match building)..~
2. One loading space is to be provided for each buildin¢ and striped
accordingly as per the requirements specified in Section ll-J of
Appendix A, Zoning.
3. Provide parking space detail (including handiCapped)showing
required curb Stops and double-striping.
4. Lighting details are to be provided.
Lighting plan' to conform to site plan ' ·
prlorto permi~3Lng.
6. Conflict between parki'hg space/utility island 6~-west ~ide of
Building "A" to be resolved prior to permittin¢
connection
/bks ANNt
--. 'MEMORANDUM
Car~en Ann~tzz~ia~o; Director
Kevin j. Ha.i~ahan - ~ -
Forester/Ho~t~cul - '-:'~'~ '
The fo~wing.comments perta}n to the landscape
for the ab.ovs project:
3 April '86 ~'
Site Plan..c..,West Industrial
Park. ~
pl an
The ~--andscape plan should have an identification
ke~ s~owing Pertinent
information.
The i'nteriOr parking-lot landscaping is deficient.
'~-A'-he~ge must'be provided al'ong the abutting properties.
Peri. meter landscaping is deficient.
Keri n
KJH:ad
TO:
FROM:
Comments:
1.
Jim Golden
Planning Department
Tom Clark
City Engineer .- "~
Site Plans, Mausoleum Additions,~-i. Boynton :Beach
Memorial Park
e
TAC:ck
-~T~Qm Clark.