Loading...
Minutes 11-22-77 ~Date: Time: Place: AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ,Regular Meetin$ November 22nd, 1977 7:30 PoM. Council Chambers City Hall .1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Acknowledgement of Members'and Visitors. Reading and Approving of Minutes. Announcements . C ommunic at ions. Old Business: . DiScu.SSi~n of proposed Recreational Vehicle Parking Ordinance New Business: A. Public Hearing: 1. Rezoning ~PPlicant.~---Charl'es J. Simon Reqqes~: .... C!_~om R1A Location: 3650 South Seacrest Blvd. Legal D~sc~iption: see attached B. Site Plan Approval: Ce 1. Applicant: David Matson Legal'Description: Lots 9, 10, 11., i4, 16, C.W. Copps Addition Location: 201 N.E. 2nd Avenue Project DescriptiOn: Car Wash 2. ApPlicant: Robert Sempell Legal Description: Lots 62-67, Lakeside Gardens Subdivision Location: 2610 No. Fdderal Hwy. Project DescrSption: 2 story office building DiscuSsion of Antenna Heights/referred from City Council on 9-6-77 (see attached minu~es and federal regulations.) Rev. 3/19/76 MI~JTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, NOVEmbER 22, 1977 AT 7:30 P. M. PRESENT Simon Ryder, Chairman Col. Walter M. Traug~r, Vice Chairman Ronald Arena Mrs. Marilyn Buckle Richard Lambert Mrs. Mary Schorr (Arrived 8:15 P.M.) Garry Winter Carmen Annunziato, City Planner Chairman Ryder called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M.~ and introdUced the members of the Board, City Planner, and Recording Secretary. MINUTES OF NOVEMJ~ER 8~ ~ 977 Mr. Lambert made a motion ~hat the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the PlanninE~.& Zoning Board of November 8, 1977, be approved as preseo~2ed, seconded by Mr. Winter. Motion carried 4-0 with .M~s. Huckle and Col. Traug~r abstaining because they were not present. OLD BUSINESS Chairman Ryder suggested postponing discussion of the pro- posed'Recreational Vehicle Parking Ordinmuce until after New' Business and the members agreed. NEW BUSINESS Public Hearing Parcel #1 - Lots 1, 2 & 3, Block 4 & W. 25 ft. of that por- tion of the R/W known as Coral Way abutting Lot 3 on the East, less R/W as set forth in R..O~W. Deed Bk. 906, pag~ 547, and W. 15 ft. of Lot 1, Blk. 5 & .E. 25 ft. of that portion of the R/W known as Coral Way abutting Lot 1, Blko 5 on the West, Gulf Stream Estates Plat No. 2, Recorded in Plat Book ~3, Page 51 Palm Beach County Records Location - 3650 South Seacrest Blvd. Applicant - Charles J. Simo~ Request - Rezone to C-~ from R-lA Use - Professional Offices Chairman Ryder stated that this was located at the extreme southerly corporate limits on the northeast corner of Sea- crest Blvd. and Gulfstream Blvd. ~o Bob Federspiel, attorney representing Dro Charles J. Simon, appeared before the Board and stated the proposed MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TWO NOVE~ER 22, t 977 rezoning is from R-lA to Cml. The property is on the corner of Gulfstream and S~crest Boulevards at the south limit of Boynton Beach and the north limit of Delray Beach. He then presented a petition from all the property owners~ except three, in the immediate area and explained that the three were not available to sign the petition. He advised that the petition basically states they do consent to this re- zoning. The purpose is to allow the property to be used for professional offices~ Adjoining the property is a church and across the street, which is Delray Beach, a school is proposed to he built~ Seacrest Boulevard is a major road between Boynton Beach commercialism. These residential properties a parents live in a ho~se perty. It will be well Roy Simen, Dr. Simon's Delray and is moving towards would provide the ~ier from the traffic. Dr. Simon's to the east of this pro- and will be designed by ther. He referred to the various buildings designed by Roy Simon. Mr. Lambert questioned the size of the property and F~o Federspiel replied that it consisted of actually three rather small lots with a unity of title. The parcel does include all three lots and the Coral Way right-of-way which wa~ abandoned. The total lot would be ~51 ft. deep by 140 ft. wide according to the survey. Chairman Ryder referred to the frontage being on Seacrest Boulevard and Mr. Federspiel agreed. Gol. Trauger ques- tioned the size of the building and ~. Federspiel replied that it would be approximately 2,000 to 2,500 sq. feet, approximately the szze of a single home. He added that it would be one office for a group of doctors. Chairman Ryder asked if he was aware there was a similar request submitted about two years ago between this location and the hospital and Mr. Federspiel replied negatively. Col. Trauger questioned the zoning across Eeacrest and Mr. Annunziato informed him that it is in the County and he was not sure of the zoning. ~s. Huckle explained how the City limits went on an mngle in this area. Chairman Ryder asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition and received no response. He then asked if anyone wanted to speak in favor of this application and received no response° Chairman Ryder stated he would like to point out for the benefit of the members who did not serve previously that there was a similar application. He explained how it was a like instance with being a family affair and they wanted to use the frontage on Seacrest Blvd. for a professiona! building. The Board disapproved it because of the fac~ MiNU ~TES PLA~"NING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THREE NOVEMBER 22, 1 977 they felt at that time there was a good deal of C-1 moned property on both sides of Seacrest Between 23rd Avenue and the hospital. The apparent reason was realized for the change in zoning with the family owning the property. He thinks everyone has been aware lately that the trend is to set up a professional plaza rather than locate adjacent to a residential area. The City is now going through a period of study and has retained Planning Consultants and they are working on a proposed land use report. This brings up the question at this time whether it would be proper or timely to contemplate any change in zoning because of the impact on their plan particularly because this is on the outskirts of the City. He has indicated his feelings because he wanted to bring attention to the similar case which was denied and the move tow~ds setting up professional plazas. Mr. Winter then requested Mr. Annunziato's opinion. Mr. Annunziato stated that he has evaluated this request and came up with the following considerations. He can find no reason why the property cannot be utilized in the existing zoning° There is no reverse hardship owing to lot size. This would be spot zoning~ He is fairly certain this loca- tion would be beyond the four lanin'g~of Seacrest. We are in the process of going through the comprehensive plan and he could not recommend positively any rezoning which would add to the commercial acreage in the City. He has the feel- ing we are going to find out we are over-commercialized al- ready. This could have an impact on our future land use. Colo Trauger stated he could see the advantage of a doctor's office on that corner, but does not want to upset the present plan because we have engaged the consultants. After the con- sultants' briefing, he was hoping we could hold the zoning status-quo until getting their report and recommendations~ He does agree this is spot zoning. He suggests tabling this until hearing the preliminary reports of the recom- mended land use in the area. Mrs° Huckle questioned the earliest this report could be expected and Chairman Ryder informed her the entire study would take 14 months. He continued that he would not like to see this matter tabled because of that since that is quite a ways off. He would not like to see it tied up from our standpoint or for the applicant. It will be one year before getting the report. Col. Trauger stated he'thought the preliminary report would be made in six months and Chairman Ryder agreed, but explained how it would be followed with public hearings and stated he thought it would be important to see how the consultants come up based on what we presently have now on our maps. Mrs. Huckle stated she thought these points were well taken° She does disagree slightlY with ~h~. Annunziato on the usage of that property at present. She told about making trips MINUTES PLANEING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR NOVEMBER 22 , 1 977 frequently to this neighborhood and she does not think it is the best location for a residence. The traffic is bad. She thinks it is more conducive for C-1 zoning empecially with Seacrest having the hospital, doctors' offices, churches, etc. Also, a petition has been submitted from the neighbors and none have objected to this well planned building and zoning. She feels in the near future this type of zoning would be better than residential zoning for this particular area. Chairman Ryder replied that it was possible the con- sultants may recommend commercial zoning, but he questions whether it is adwisable to make any change now. ~o Lambert stated he would not be in favor of changing the zoning since it would be spot zoning a piece of pro- perty far south on Seacrest where it is not near commercial. Maybe after the study is completed, he would be in favor of it; however, at this time, he does not think we should spot zone that far south. ~s. Huckle referred to the church being there and actually this area not being residential totally. Chairman Ryder stated that on the west side, there was undeveloped land and also other vacant lots in the area. Mr. Federspiel stated that one point he would like to reit- erate is that they did present a petition showing every property owner does approve of this plan. In reference to the government looking at experts to tell them what to do in their neighborhoods, it seems unfair to deny a right if everyone is in favor. He referred to the area having the high school, churches, etc. and stated that actually a church is more obnoxious in the traffic sense. A doctors' office will have a limited amount of traffic flow. It would really fit into this area very well. Chairman Ryder stated that sometimes neighbors find it dif- ficult to say no to a neighbor and Mr. Federspiel replied that Dr. Simon is not a resident in this area° Mr. Annun- ziato added that often times zoning is not just a neighbor- hood function. The impact goes to the surrounding areas. It also must be considered what basis they could use as a Board not to recommend another adjacent application. Chair- man Ryder added that another consideration is when a rezon- ing is approved, the area is opened up to all the permissive use~ in that category. It has been indicated that this will be developed as a doctors' office, but there is no guarantee. He thinks we must look at the overall picture. However, the owner could use i~ for any of the permissive uses under C-1 if it is rezoned. BMr. Federspiel replied that he thinks they would be protected with the use with the doctor's rela- tives living in this area and he would deed restrict it to a doctors, office even if it was sold. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FIVE NO~MBER 22, 1977 Mrg Arena made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend to the City Council the denying of the zoning request by Dr. Charles J. Simon to C-l from R-lA at 3650 South Seacrest Blvd. Mr. Lambert seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mr. Annunziato suggested possibly in- cluding what the motion~ is based on and Mr. Arena replied that he feels it is definite spot zoning and they should not get into that situation at this time. Chairman Ryder clarified the las~ statement thmt it was because the entire matter of zoning for BoYnton Beach is under study and Mr. Arena replied that he was not basingit particularly on the comprehensive plan. Motion carried 5-1 with Mrs. Huckle dissenting. Site Plan Approval 1. Applicant: David Matson Mr. Annunziato referred to Mr. Matson not being present as yet and suggested holding this until he arrives or until the end of the agenda and Chairman Ryder announced it would be held in abeyance until the applicant appe~s. Applic~ut: Robert Sempell Legal Description: Lots 62-67, Lakeside Gardens Subdivision Location: 2610 North Federal Highwa~ Project Descriptien~ 2 Story Office Building Mro Robert Sempell, 11 Adams Road, Ocean Ridge, appeared before the Board. M~. Annunziato explained that this was located between Potter Road and Dimick Road on the east side of Federal Highway with A~os Hudson Trailers adjacent to the property. The building is existing, but the roof has fallen in, but it is sal~agaBle. The plans are to remodel it with an ad- dition on the front and to clean up the side. The staff has reviewed the plan and the Building Department has re- quired a handicapped parking space, the Engineering Depart- ment has required a drainage elevation plan, the Utility Department has noted that sewage is to be provided by septic tank, and the staff recommendation is to approve the plan subject to staff comments. F~so Huckle questioned the use and ~. Annunziato informed her it would be for offices. Mr. Lambert asked what was to the east and Mr. Annunziato replied there were lots and Mr. Sempell added that there was a paved parking area. Discussion followed regarding the layout of the lots. Mr. Lambert referred to it actually being a non-conforming building and questioned the addition planned and Mr. Annun- ziato explained there would be an addition on the front of MINUTES PLANNLHG & ZONING BOARD PAGE SIX NOYE~BER 22, 1 977 the building~ Mr. Lambert clarified that it would not add to the non-conformity and Mr. Annunziato replied affirmatively and stated that the 15 ft. side setback would be maintained on the addition. R~. Lambert referred to the area in the middle and ~. Annun- ziato explained that it was landscaped area. Mr. Lambert questioned the use immediately to the east of the existing building and Mr. Annunziato informed him there were commer- cially zoned lots. Chairman Ryder referred to the addition and Mr. Annunziato explained that it was just a room in front of the existing shell. Mr. Lambert made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend that the City Council accept the site plan appro~ val for the Robert Sempell application for a two story office building subject to staff comments and recommenda- tions, seconded by Mrs. Huckle. Motion carnied 6-0. (At this time, 8:15 P. M., Mrs. Schorr arrived.) Applicant: David Matson Legal Description: Lots 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, Co W. Copps Addition Location: 201N. E. 2nd ~venue Project Description: Car Wash ~. Annunziato referred to N~o Matson still not being pre- sent, but suggested that the Board review the plan. He stated there were no staff comments of any significance° The members studied the plan. ~o Winter questioned what the applicant stated he was going to use this property for when he reGuested rezoning and Chairman Ryder replied that this Board denied the rezoning, but the Council over-ruled and approved it. He then read from the August 23 minutes where ~. Ostrum stated there were many uses under C-4 he could put in there other than a nice office building. ~t was also stated by Mr. Ostrum that it would be up to the Planning & Zoning Board and Building Department what could be constructed. He stated he proposed to build a commercial building. Chairman RYder then stated that this is what happens when the zoning is changed, the door is opened to all permissive uses. He referred to the discussion about the additional traffic generated and people being present being concerned about the traffic. There is no question about the traffic which would be generated by a car wash. He hopes the Council will now recognize their advisory boards possibly spend more time and study in these matters than the Council does. He does not think they should treat lightly their upsetting of our considerations. Also, the Board is aware that in rezoning, anything can happen in the way of the choice of permissive use regardless of what is stated at the time of application. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SEVEN NOVEmbER 22, 1977 Mrs. Huckle referred to the present zoning not being the same as requested when the application came before the ~ard and ~r. Lambert replied that the zoning change was merely for the lots 14-16 in the rear and the C-4 commercial existed at that time. He submits that the property in the rear was the matter of the rezoning request and not the property in the front. There was a comment that if it was changed, it would be for driveway and parking and that is what it is being used for. The Council did not question the C-4, but granted C-2 to the rear lots. Nowhere did these people mislead us~ The zoning permitted the car wash on the property in the front~ Mr. Arena read the discus- sion from the previous minutes where the applicant stated the two lots would be used for parking or driveway and in- gress and egress would not be on 2nd ~venue and Mr. Lambert replied that he believes the applicant is still doing what he said. Chairman Ryder clarified that there would be a car wash on 2nd Avenue and Mx. Lambert replied that a car wash could be anywhere on 2nd Avenue according to the zoning and he does not see anything wrong with a car wash~ If the Board feels some of the uses ~der C-4 should not be in there, then they should change the zoning. This applicant is using the pro- perty as zoned° Ghairman Ryder referred to the traffic which would be generated in this particular area and added that he did not think a car wash would enhance the center City area. Mrs. Huckle clarified that the front lot is C-4 and the rear lots are C-2o She stated~ the C-2 would be used ~ust for parking° She then referred to the specific re- quest for rezoning being C-4 to match the front lots and stated that we acted on that specific request by denying it. She asked if it was technically within the Council's prerogative to change it without pre-publication and Mr. Annunziato replied that it was done at a public hearing and the change which was made was in a more restrictive mode and was legal. M~s. Huckle clarified that technically this Board could have done the same thing° ~o Lambert stated that he thinks he did suggest it and asked why the applicant had to have C~4 and was told he requested it to ~atch the front lots. They discussed further the differ- ences between the commercial zones. ~. Arena referred to some misleading remarks being made ~y the applicant previously and stated he felt an office building would fit in this location~ however, a car wash will stick out like a s~re thumb. He does not think a car wash could ha~e been put there without the two back lots for ingress and egress. Mr. Lambert agreed maybe the car wash could not ha~e been constructed on the front lots, but there are many other locations within this area MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE EIGHT NOVE~ER 22, 1977 where a car wash could go without coming before the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Arena agreed, but stated he felt this application was based on one thought. He thinks the Council is under a big misconception about what is going to Eo on there. He is sure these back two lots will not be used only for parking. The members then studied the plans further and N~. Annunziato pointed out that parking was shown on Lot 14 and a traffic lane on Lot 16 in the rear. He thinks it is apparent that the lane left open will be a stacking lane for the car wash use. ~s. Huckle read the description for C-2 neighborhood commer- cial to serve individual residential neighborhoods and stated to have a thru-way to a car wash on such a lot does not con- form to the description of neighborhood C-2 commercial use. All the cars getting into the car wash will funnel through this neighborhood lot. Mr. Annunziato agreed this point was well taken and there is a fine line whether the C-4 use is spilling over to the C-2 lots. Mrs. Huckle made a motion that this item be tabled and have M~. Annunziato make a further study as to what the proper use of these two combined lots can adequately be since C-2 is more restrictive and possibly give a further recommenda- tion, seconded by Mr. Winter. Motion carried 6-t with Mr. Lambert dissenting. ~. Lambert clarified his vote by say- ing that he thinks we are playing games with the applicant. He does not think in any way, shape or form that the Board was misled at all. The man told us that it would be condu- cive to have extra parking for his C-4 lots in the front. Most of the Planning & Zoning Board members saw fit to recom- mend denial, but the City Council granted C-2 zoning to him. He does not think there was any misleading at all, not one bit. Discussion of Antenna Heights - Referred from City Council on September 6~ 1977 Chairman Ryder referred to this matter being referred to the Board since there was a temporary moratorium on the heights of the an~ennaes and requested a report from ~. Annunziato before considering whether to explore it. Mr. Annunziato stated that this came up at a City Council meeting approximately two months ago when an individual was cited owing to the fact he had an oversized antenna. The man sought relief from the Council stating he needed the additional height so as not to cause interference~with neigh- bors, television sets and also the Federal regulations did per~t a 60 ft. antenna. He has contacted the Federal Regu- lation Commission in chs~ge of antennaes and this was sub- stantiated. However, this is a relatively new ordinance MINUTES PI~¢~G & ZONI~ BOARD PAGE NINE N0¥EM~ER 22, 1977 and we felt we reached a reasonable solution.~. He cannot recommend we changeit even though the Federal regulations permit 60 ft. Mr. Lambert stated that we did spend quite a bit of time on this even though one Council member referred to the ordim nance being outdated. Mr. Annmnziato then read the section regarding height limita- tions and specifications and pointed out there was a potential in the single family zone to have a 30 ft. high antenna tached to the house. Chairman Ryder clarified that the ret quest was for about four times that height and 60 ft. is equivalent to a six story building. He questions whether that is desirable. Mr. Lambert stated that we got expert opinion on this, spent a great deal of time on it, and even went higher than what we first talked about and Mr. Annunziato agreed and added that his recommendation was 5 ft. lesso Mr. Lambert stated that it was only prepared within the past year and is a recent ordinance. He does not know why we should rehash this again. Chairman Ryder added that it was seriously and extensively considered a relatively short time ago and he feels it is proper and there is no reason to change it. ~s. $chorr referred to the electrical code requiring a permit for antennaes over a certain height with inspection of wires, etc. and Chairman Ryder replied that radio towers, etc. must be brought before the Planning & Zoning Board and Council, but this is in reference to residential antennaes. Mrs~ Huckle stated she was not on the Board when this was prepared but in reading the City Council minutes, she thinks there were some merits for the case. Possibly there should be an in-between height to adequately serve these purposes. Apparently quite a few people are not adhering to the code. Rather than having many in violation, possibly something acceptable and workable should be proposed. She does not think the ~iolators should be ignored. She thin~ more attention should be given to it based on what was brought out by the people.~ Col~ Trauger replied that once 60 ft. is allowed, there will be 60 ft. antennaes all over the place and they discussed the effect of this. Chairman Ryder stated that there will always be violations and the point is~not to correct it to the point where there are no more violations. He referred to the effect of rezoning. Mrs. Huckle then asked if exceptions to the zoning code should go before the Board of Adjustment rather than the Planning & Zoning Board and Mr. Annunziato told about he and Attorney Reed researching this and determining the Planning & Zoning Board could recommend an exception. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TEN NOYE~ER 22, 1 977 ~e Lambert moved that the Planning & Zoning Board bring to the City Council's attention that approximately one year ago, the Board in depth researched the height limitations on television, CB, and commercial antennaes and structures and at this particular time, we do not feel there is any change needed in our ordinance on the books° Mr. Winter seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mrs. Huckle com- mented that according to the City Council minutes, Councilman ~orman Strnad mentioned that the ordinance on the books was outdated. Motion carried 7-.0. At this time, Chairman Ryder called a five minute recess for the purpose of finding out the election returns. He called the meeting back to order at 9:00 P. M. OLD BUSINESS Discussion of Proposed Recre. atio~aI Vehicl~ Parking Ordinance Chairman Ryder referred to the re~iew of the ordinance at the last meeting when it was decided to reconsider some of the requirements which were found to be too exacting or un- desirablee There was a lengthy discussion about the need for any kind of permit procedure, which he felt was highly desirable and after discussion, it was suggested since it stemmed initially from ~o Howell that the City Planner should meet with ~. Howell and find out whether he still feels this would be the proper way to go. Mr. Annunziato reported that he met with Mr~ Howell and given the potential of the proposed ordinance, he feels a decal and inspection are not necessary, no permit procedure. Chairman Ryder asked how they reached this conclusion and Mr. ~nnunziato replied based on not having any items to be inspected. Chairman Ryder referred to Page 1 and read Section They discussed excluding vans and changing pickup to ~lide- in camper. After discussion, it was agreed to exclude vans and mak~ this change. Chairman Ryder then referred to the question of a permit and decal and stated he still was not in agreement that it was not needed. M~. Lambert explained how it would not be needed if only one vehicle was permitted to be parked in the front~ Further discussion followed with no agreement being reached based on the ether items having to be agreed upon first. ChairmanP~vder then referred to the setbacks and stated he felt it should be parked in back of the front roof line. Fnrther discussion followed about the necessity for the 3' side setback and Mrs. Huckle explained how a large vehicle parked on the side could be objectionable to neighbors and suggested setting a height limit. There was further dis- cussion about eliminating the side setback if only allowing MINUTES PL~NNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE ELEVEN NOVEM~ER 22, ~ 977 one vehicle to be parked in the front. Mr. Annunziato then suggested that a vote be taken on the recommendation to state: Recreation Vehicle, Boat and/or Boat Trailer may be stored in the rear yard - not closer than 5 ft. to the rear lot line, or side yard - not projecting beyond the front building line. The vote was 6 in favor with Mrs. Huckle opposed. Chairman Ryder referred to the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked in the front and Mr. Annunziato sug, gested adding another sentence after "garage" in Section 7 stating: Only one recreation vehicle may be parked or stored between the right-of-way and the structure. There was some discussion about this with the members being in agreement° M~. Annunziato then clarified that Section 6 would be de- fined further with stating a hard surfaced area of asphalt, paving stones, shell rock or concrete. Chairman Ryder referred to Page 4 and the consensus being to delete Section 8 regarding tiedowns and the members ex- pressed agreement. Chairman Ryder referred to Section B pertaining to the permit and clarified the suggestion was to take it out entirely and ~. Winter agreed.~ Mr~ Lambert suggested leaving in Paragraph t and Mr. Annunziato agreed it would be Section 5A8. There was further discussion about the permit and then Chairman Ryder took a vote of those in favor of removm lng the requirement for a permit and the vote was 6-1 with Chairman Ryder dissenting° It was then requested of Mr. ~nnunziato to take out all references to the special permit° Mr. Annunziato advised that based on the Board's action night, he would have the proposal retyped. Chairman Ryder stated that he thought it was imperative that the finalized d~aft be voted on by the entire Board. Mr. Annunziato sug- gested the Board holding a public hearing to inform the pub~ lic of the finalized proposed ordinance and the members dis- cussed whether this would be necessary. After discussion, it was agreed to hold a special meeting on Tuesday, November 29 at 9:30 ~. M. to vote on the finalized proposed ordinance to be ~u~mitted to the City Council for their first meeting in December. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Arena made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Col. Trauger. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 10:05 P. Mo Respectfully submitted, Suzanne M. Kruse', Recording Secretary (Three Tapes) NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning g Zoning Board of the CITY.OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA shall meet at 7:50 P. M. Tuesday, November 22, 1977, at the City Hall, Boynton Beach, to consider application with respect to the following described property located within the limits of said City, Palm Beaeh County, oursuant to the request of the party in interest: Parcel ~t - Lots 1, 2 g 5, Blk. 4 g W 25 ft of that portion of the R/W known as Coral Way abutting Lot 5 on the East, less R/W as set forth in R.O.W. Deed Bk. 906, page 547, and W 15 ft of Lot l~ Blk. 5 & E 25 ft of that portion of the R/W known as Coral Way abutting Lot 1, Blk. 5 on the West, GULF STRE~-f ESTATES PLAT NO. 2, Recorded in Plat Book 15, Page 51 Palm Beach County Records Location - 5650 South Seacrest Blvd. Applicant - Charles J. Simon Request - REZONE to C-1 from R1A ~se - Professional Offices ALSO, A Public Hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Boynton Beaeh~ on the above request on December 7, 1977, at 8:00 P. M. Any person having any objection to the above, and all persons interested therein, shall present said objections at the above stated meetings. TEREESA PADGETT, CITY CLERK CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA PUBLISH: Palm Beach Post-Times November 5 and 12, 1977 CC City Manager City Council City Planner City Attorney Mrs. Kruse