Minutes 03-22-77MINUTES OF ~HE REGUI~R MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, I977 AT 7:30 P. M.
PRESENT
Simon Ryder, Chairman
Col. Walter M. Trauger, Vice Chairman
Ronald Arena
Mrs. Marilyn Huckle
Richard Lambert
Mrs. Mary Schorr
Garry Winter
Carmen Annunziato,
City Planner
Chairman Ryder welcomed everyone and called the meeting to
order at 7:30 P. M. He introduced the members of the Board,
City Planner and Recording Secretary. He then acknowledged
the presen~e~of Mayor Joseph F. Zack in the audience.
~iinutes of February 22 ~ 1977
Col. Trauger referred to the second page, under the Minutes
of February 8, six lines down, and advised the word "declared"
was in error and should be "constitutes" a quorum.
~hairman Ryder referred to Page 2~and Mr. Lambert's inquiry
whether the Minutes of January 17 were approved and advised
that he researched this and they were approved at the meeting
of January 25. He read the motion approving these minutes
with the motion made by himself and seconded by Mr. Lambert.
Eol. Trauger moved that the Minutes of February 22 be ac-
cepted as amended, seconded by ~. Lambert. Motion carried
7-0.
Announcements
M~. Annunziato referred to the Board pre~iously discussing
comprehensive planning and advised that he received a re-
sponse from the Department of Community Affairs and Boynton
Beach has not been selected for the first funds, but has
been potentially selected for potential funds if and when
they become m~ailable. He added that in the southeas¢ area
the three towns of Sebastian, Orchid, and Greenacres City
were selected. He then read the list'~of towns, including
Boynton Beach, selected for potential funds. He told about
a meeting on Monday and they have been requested to complete
their outline. Chairman Ryder remarked that it apparently
was not based on population or size and ~. Annunziato ex-
plaine~how they had a priority system with the basic under-
lying fact to select those with a total lack of planning
first. ~
A~EW BUSIh~ESS
MI~gTES
PI~.NNING & ZONING BOb_RD
PAGE TWO
MARCH 22, 1977
Public Hearings
.Proposed Amendment of Section 7 of Zoning Regulations
to Replace the Office Park District in its Entirety
with a New District Entitled Planned Industrial Dev-
~_lopment District .
Chairman Ryder read the above and requested Mr. Annunziato
to give a brief description of the subject matter.
Mm. Annunziato informed the Board that the ordinance as pro-
posed has been reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Board and
was recommended to the City Council and the City Council has
now returned it to the Board for a Public Hearing. He ex-
plained how it provided for amPlanned Industrial Development
District. He added that Some of the members did get a chance
to see am example with a visit to the Deerfield Beach Indus-
trial Park.
Chairman Ryder stated that in contrast to what is now on the
books., this permits a developer to come in with a more cohesive
scheme where he has 25 acres or more to develop. The developer,
in a sense, takes care of the whole package. He told about
finding a lot of landscaping and careful planning at the Deer-
field Beach Park. He then requested comments from other
Board members.
Mr. Lambert asked if they had any mapped out areas for an
Office Park District and Mr. Annunziato replied: no. Mr.
Lambert referred to some of the permitted uses under Office
Park not being mentioned under a Planned Industrial Develop-
ment and Mr. Annunziato explained that there were no per-
mitted uses in the Planned Industrial Development, but the
Planning & Zoning Board must determine the uses are consis-
tent with the P. IoD.
Mr. Lambert referred to this eliminating educational insti-
tutions unless they have 25 acres ~nd also, what about gov-
ernment owned and operated? Mr. Annunziato informed him
that government owned schools were permitted in any district.
Chairman Ryder added that 25 acres would be the entire develop-
ment. ~. Lambert agreed, but stated that a school would not
develop 25 acres just for a school and Mrs. Huckle replied
that a school could go into an industrial development i£ it
was started. Mr. Annunziato stated he was sure they had
gone over this previously ~ud he does not think the Office
Park District was the only district allowing schools. ~.~s.
Huckle stated that she went through this the other day and
advised when the code was originally written, schools were
permitted use~ under R-1AAA and then they wereeeliminated,
except for nursery and private schools. She could not find
schools included anywhere else, There are other schools
covered, but nothing for just a school. ~. Annunziato stated
MINUTES
PLA~iNING & ZONING BOARD
P~IGE THZREE
~i~RCH 22, 1977
that he did not think this was a shortcoming of the P.I.D.
and M~. Lambert replied that this was not the point, but in
dropp±ng the Office Park, they have dropped educational in-
stitutions out of the regulations. ~. Annunziato stated he
thought they decided that churches, which are permitted in
R-1AAA, would be permitted to have accessory uses, which would
be a school. In further discussions, it was pointed out that
if and when the School Board decides they want to build a
school, they build it wherever they want. ~s. $chomr ques-
tioned private schools and Mm. Annunziato replied they were
allowed if associated with a church. He added that he raised
this issue not too long ago and the Board decided they wanted
it this way. Chairman Ryder added that it was true that pub-
lic schools could go anywhere in any zoning category. Chair-
man Ryder then suggested giving ~Ir. Annunziato a chance to
research this further and report back to the Board whether
something further has to be done as far as schools are con-
cerned.
Mrs. Huckle then recommended that the content of the wor~ng
could be improved. She explained how the outlining was not
consistent with the rest of the code. Mr. Annunziato agreed
and stated he would change the outline to correspond with the
ordinance.
Col. Trauger referred to the nouns listed regarding prohibited
uses and stated it was a matter of degree and reason which
would be obnoxious and he asked if it was the intent for the
Planning & Zoning Board anR City Council to determine this
degree and Mr. Annunziato explained how the acceptance would
be based on the expertise of the Board and/or corresponding
uses in the park. They discussed how the reasons were written
in for purposes and Mm. Annunziato pointed out that other
zoning classifications were available in the City which are
not as well defined.
Mrs. Schorr asked if the ch~uges referred to in the January
17 minutes were incorporated and Mr. Annunziato informed her
that they were. Mrs. Schorr referred to Page 1I, under M,
and the correction to delete Chapter 25 and supplement with
"City Ordinances" and Mr. Annunziato informed her this had
been revised in the final draft.
Mrs. Huckle read Section D on Page 2 and questioned just
what was meant by unified control and Mr. Annunziato ex-
plained how legal documents must be submitted to give evi-
dence of uni£i~ control. M~s. Huckle stated they were
actually asking for something to be submitted, but are not
sure what they want. Chairman Ryder explained how ~'under
control" meant the developer was to implement the growth of
the entire area. The developem has the control of what
MINUTES
PLA~ING & ZONING BO_~RD
R~GE FOUR
~&&RCH 22, 1 977
happens providing it is done in accord~uce with City require-
ments. He then told about the developer in Deerfield Beach
being in favor of dealing with municipalities rather than
locating in the unincorporated area. ~s. Huckle referred to
the possibility of the applicant being allowed to sell off
part and ~. Annunziato replied that it did not mean that and
in reading further, it spells out that a master plan must be
submitted and that is what this is referring to. A master
plan cannot be submitted for land which the developer doesn't
own. Mrs. Schorr added that the Procedures for Zoning on Page
8 clarified this further. ~s. Huckle agreed, but stated she
still wondered whether this particular section was clear as
to what they are asking the applicant to have. Chairman
R~der clarified that they were setting up a new zoning cate-
gory and when a developer comes in and acquires the land, it
is at that time he must appear before the Board with a request
to change the zoning.
Chairman Ryder then asked if anyone in the audience desired
to speak in favor of this change in zoning category and re-
ceived no response. He then asked if anyone was opposed to
this change in zoning category and received no response.
Mr. Lambert moved that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend
that the City Council amend Section 7 of the Zoning Regula-
tions to replace the Office Park District in its entirety
with a new District entitled Planned Industrial Development
District. Mr. Winter seconded the motion. Under discussion,
~s. Huekle asked about the suggested improvements for the
outlining and Mr. Annunziato replied this was just a matter
of typing. Mr. Arena asked about the school situation ~ud
Mr. Lambert clarified that he was in favor of the Planned
Industrial Development, but he woul~ like the fact researched
further that possibly in eliminating the Office Park District,
they may be writing out of their zoning educational institu-
tions and this should be checked into further and clarified.
Chairman Ryder then mad~ the observation that three of the
members were on the Board previously and had an adequate
opportunity to review this, hut four members came in cold.
It is helpful these questions have been raised. Mr. Arena
referred to not knowing the decision ~n the schools and
asked if they were in a position to recommend this to the
City Council and Mr. Lambert replied that he thought so.
Chairman Ryder added that it did not rule out or prohibit
taking care of that situation. He added that they have dis-
cussed this matter previously, but should get it definitely
resolved. Mr. Arena clarified that they were recommending
the City Council to replace Office Park with Planned Indus-
trial Development and if they do, there is no place in the
present zoning for schools. ~. Annunziato informed him
that the only schools which will not be per~mitted would be
private schools. Church schools would be an accessory to
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
P~G E FI~
~CH 22, 1977
the church and public schools have the ability to located
where they want to regardless of the local zoning. The
only ones e×clnded would be private nonsecular schools.
t~. Lambert stated it should be discussed further and M~.
Annunziato agreed. Motion carried 7-0.
Abandonment Request: 20 ft. Alley East of and Parallel
to .~E.C.R.R~ Between N.E. 3rd Avenue and N.E. 5th Ave~
Requested bY: Robert Beane, Lucien A. Sawn, Dorothy
Brin~ GillianW~mbo~ne, M~ke.
Chairman Ryder read the above and then requested M~. Annunziato's
input.. ~. Annunziato informed the Board that comments from
the staff had been forwarded to the members, all in a positive
nature. He advised that ~lorida Power & Light Co. was request-
ing a 12 ft. easement to be maintained on the east side for
ingress, egress and maintenance of power lines.
Chairman Ryder a~ed if anyone present wished to speak in
favor of this application.
Mr. Lou Samyn stated his name aud his address as 151S. W.
25th Avenue. He infor~ned the Board that he was one of the
property owners requesting this abandonment. He then ques-
tioned the 12 ft. easement request and ~. Annunziato in-
formed him that the east 12 ft. had been requested by Florida
Power & Light Co. Mr. Samyn stated that they had previously
requested a 5 ft. easement, but speaking for himself person-
nally, he did not see ~uy objection to a 12 ft. easement.
~. Annunziato informed him that if this land is abandOned
and the easement recorded, if any structures, fence, l~d-
scaping, paving, etc. are installed and if they have to be
removed for servicing of the lines, this would be~t the
expense of the applicant. M~. ~amyn stated again that he
did not have any objectio~z~. He thinks it is in excess, but
certainly they know what they are doing.
Chairman Ryder referred to these areas being vacant and asked
just how they proposed to maintain the additional right-of-
way and Mr. Samyn replied that the City has no~ investment as
far as paving, etc. and probably they will utilize Ehis for
a parking area.
They then discussed the exa~t location. ~. Lambert asked
if all the owners were included in the application and Mr.
Sa~n replied: yes and added that the original alley dead
ends where the private property and railroad property go
together and this could not be used by the Police and Fire
Departments. The properties do front on 4th St., so the
Police and Fire Departments do have access to all these pro-
perties. Also, there are no utilities, except the overhead
Florida Power.& Light lines.
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
PAGE S iX
MARCH 22, 1 977
Mr. Annunziato stated he was not quite sure what it means,
but the City is next to the proposed abandoned property.
The request does run from street to street, but the alley
is behind the Animal Control Shelter. Mr. Samyn replied
that he did not lmuow it went street to street and was under
the impression it dead ended. Mr. Annunziato clarified that
the request is from 3rd to 5th Avenue smd the Animal Control
Shelter !s on 4th Street and this would include land behind
it. Mr. Samyn replied that it would not be any problem as
far as the Animal Control Shelter as they are interested in
the property to the north. Mr. Lambert stated he did not
know how the City could abandon something they own. The
City already owns the property and has the right-of-way.
~. Annunziato recommended that if this was favorably acted
on that these three lots be excluded.
Chairman Ryder asked if ~ybody else wished to speak on be-
half of this application and received no response. He then
asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition and received
no response. He then opened this matter for discussion by
the Board members.
~. Lambert commentedthat if they are going to exclude Lots
4, 5, and 6, Block 6, they should specify the legal descrip-
tion of these lots and that Florida Power & Light Co. gets
the easement.
Chairman Ryder referred to the City Planner's report regard-
ing this abandonment abutting the right-of-way for the F.E.C.
Railroad an~ asked if this could be turned over to the appli-
cants even though they are not the only abutting owners?
Mr. Lambert asked if the F.E.C. Railroad had been notified
and ~. Annunziato replied: yes ~ud added that he has had
some discussions with the engineer about this. They are
both of the opinion that the railroad does not have interest
in this land. All this land came off one plat. He explained
how if the two plats had been joined, there would be undiv-
ided interest. Chairman Ryder stated he thought they would
have to have some kind of official notification from the
F.E.C. Railroad because they might do something which may
lea~ to complications 2ater on. ~. Annunziato replied that
the F.E.C. Railroad has been notified.
Chairman Ryder referred to receiving requests of this k~n~d
from time to time and they seem to be growing and he ques-
tions if the City can make use of these rights-of-way be-
fore relinquishing them. The abutting owners must pay the
taxes, but there is no further renumeration to the City.
This strip is almost two bloc~ long and the City is just
going to give it up. He questions if there is some use the
City could find for this. He is not convinced it is in the
City's best interest to do this. Mr. Annunziato informed
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
PAGE SEVEN
M~%RCH 22, t 977
that generally the rights,Of-way are used by the City for
utilities and transportation. This particular right-of-way
was never used for either by the City. tn reference to
streets and alleys, the City really does not own them, but
the public is granted the privilege to use them. Therefore,
itwwould be inappropriate for the City to accept renumeration
and we are getting renumeration b~ accepting the application
fee.
Mr. Lambert advised that it must also be considered that the
owners would not be allowed to pave this because it is too
narrow.
Mrs. Schorr referred to having letters from the City Engineer,
Police Department, Fire Department and General Services stat-
ing it is of no use to the City.
Mr. Lambert asked if there was any reason the City should not
retain the easement with Florida Power & Light Co. or if they
just would have not any need for it and Mr. Annunziato con-
curred and stated if there is a deed to be recorded, it should
be for a utility ~ud access easement, but not necessarily in
Florida Power & Light Company's name. Mr. Lambert clarified
that the 12 ft. easement should be granted to the City of
Boynton Beach and Mr. Annunziato agreed this would be appro-
priate.
Mr. Lambert asked if this alley continued to ~Oth Avenue or
in fact came to a dead end and ~Ar. Samyn explained how the
alley dead ended into private property. He added that it
did not even continue to 6th Avenue. ~. Lambert referred
to the City having an easement further north and stated
there may be the necessity to extend this sewage line.
~. Lambert asked if the applicant cared whether it was an
easement for Florida Power & Light Co. or the 'City and ~.
Samyn replied: no and advised that they certainly were not
going to do any building, but may fence it or use it for
parking. If they want to have the City and Florida Power &
Light Co. in the easement, he would be willing to do that.
~s. Huckle questioned the F.E.C. right-of-way ~ud Mr. Samyn
informed her that he thought it was 15 ft. from the tracks
going east. ~s. Huckle remarked that it did not look like
there was room for ~5 ft. for the railroad and a0 ft. for
the abandonment and ~. Samyn informed her that the alley
abuts the railroad property and ~. Annunziato added that he
thought the right-of-way is only 50 ft. there.
Mr. Lambert made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board
recommend to the City Council the abandonment request for
the alley east of the F.E.C. Railroad right-of-way, Lots
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 3; Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 6;
Roberts Addition, with the stipulation that said property
owners grant a 12 ft. easement east of arid parallel to the
F.E.C. Railroad to the City of Boynton Beach. ~. Arena
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZON_~G BOARD
PAGE EIGHT
MARCH 22, 1 977
seconded the motion. Under ~scussion, Mr. Lambert stated
he thought ¥~. Annunziato had brought out a good point about
the F.E.C. Railroad regarding the original platting of the
subdivision and F.E.C. Railroad having no interest. They
have been notified and have not forwarded any objections.
He does not feel they should have an important say. Chair-
man Ryder clarified that F.E.C. Railroad have been notified,
but we have not heard from them. Motion carried 6-1, with
Chairman Ryder voting against.
At this time, Chairman Ryder acknowledged the presence of
Councilman JOe DeMarco in the audience.
Presentation of Palm Beach County Land Use Plan for Boynton
Beach Reserve Annexation Area by the Palm Beach County Plan-
ning Department
~. Annunziato announced that 5~. King would be making this
presentation to go along with the County's dut~ to present
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The presentation being made
tonight will be incorporated somewhat into the final] presen-
tation to be made by Mr. King to the Land Use Advisory Board.
He explained how the land use determined by the County was
set for two years after annexation by the City. He felt this
Board should review what the County is proposing in our
annexation area. Our comments are not obligatory on the
County.
Mr. King appeared before the Board and thanked them for the
opportunity to be here this evening. He posted the 1972 Land
Use Plan on the board and informed them that the County was
in the process of revising it. He stated that the plan was
submitted as the basis for the 1974 Area Planning Board Act
for the unincorporated areas. He then explained how they
came up with startling conclusions on the impact. With this
impact analysis from the 1974 Comprehensive Planning Act,
they have gone into a program to revise the 1972 plan to
reelect development which will be considerably different in
the future. They have indicated the areas to the west of
the municipalities different than the 1972 plan. There was
a Land Use Advisory Board Meeting this afternoon and one of
the major things coming out of that was the adoption of a
development scheme for the south end of the County, the area
south of Lantana Road. The area on the original map showed
the area west of ~litary Trail being recommended for single
family developments of four units per acre and up to six
units per acre under PUD. They have adopted a change in
that particular area to go with a new interim zone, Subur-
ban Estate Zone, halfway between the one unit per acre and
the PUD of six units per acre. This zone would have a den-
sity of one unit per half acre or three units per acre under
a PUD. This zoning would be applied immediately west of
Military Trail from Hypoluxo Road to one mile north of Lake
Mt~TES
PI~NN. ING & ZONING BOARD
PAGE NINE
~&RCH 22, 1977
ida Road. They do not have any recommendations for east of
Military Trail and think the single family zoning recommended
there should be continued. The areas west of the Florida
Turnpike, they are recommending for a r~ral development pat-
tern and this would basically stick with the existing density
in the agricultural zone as it exists with one unit per five
acres, but they are proposing the allowance of clustering
developments. This is reflecting a considerable change in
the areas west of the Turnpike. He referred to the proposed
plan and pointed out the existing and planned developments.
He also explained that the western reserve areas of Delray
Beach and Boca Raton would primarily not be changed because
of committed developments. He explained how the chauuges had
been recommended based on preservation of their water supply
and also consideration of the traffic impact. He then de-
clared the discussion open on the basic general plan.
Chairman Ryder asked if theY had determined a population cap
for the Boynton Beach area and Mr. King informed him that
under the existing land use plan, there could have been as
many as 43,000 dwelling units within the immediate reserve
area; however, in this revision process they have identified
the entire region as 47,000 acres which they are proposing
to remain in rural residential, of which 30,000 are west of
the turnpike and within this particular reserve area, there
could be between 7,600 units and t0,000 units. This is pri-
marily because of the reduction from six units per acre to
two units per acre. It would be concentrating the suburban
residential estate developments which could have been going
west of the Turnpike. There is a lot of intense development
being lout in, but in this area it is being reduced.
Mr. Lambert questioned the north and south boundary lines and
.Mr. King pointed out HYpoluxo Road on the north to one mile
north of Lake Ida Road on the south extending to the E3 canal
to the west. He added that it was reduced approximately 75%
in this area.
Mr. Lambert asked w~hy the area west of Boynton Beach was not
afforded the same development possibilities as theaother areas?
There is a lot of rural residential east of the Turnpike and
why isn't it suburban residential? Boca Raton goes to the
conservation area. Mr. Kingreplied that Boca Raton was re-
flected on existing developments. They have to make revisions
on lands not committed at this time. Mr. Lambert clarified
that he was talking about the area east of the Turnpike and
Mr. King pointed out that this area was shown for suburban
estate districts and the area to the north is agricultural
and is being proposed to come out of that shortly.
Mr. Lambert stated that after reading the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act, he thinks it is fairly important
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
PAGE TEN
~L~RCH 22, 1 977
as far as Boynton Beach~is concerned that once this is passed
that it is rather definite. If we want to expand in the annex-
ation.area, we may be locked in with rural residential. He
would like to see us have the same opportunity as our brother
and sister cities. With this conservation of water, it looks
like the area of Boynton Beach is being locked in. It does
not seem very consistent. Boynton Beach is the third largest
City in Palm Beach County. It is also close to the fastest
growing. All of a Sudden, it is being pushed in at the Boynton
Beach annexation area. Mr. King clarified that in the existing
annexation area, there would be a slight reduction in the half
mile strip west of ~litary Trail, but everything to the east
of Military Trail is going to remain with the single family
recommendation. The 43,000 units included the unincorporated
areas east of Military Trail. This particular reduction to
7,600 would only be in the strio west of Military Trail.
Boynton Beach Will still be having single family residential
east of Military Trail.
Mr. Lambert questioned the green area west of Boca Raton and
M~. King informed him it was an existing residential estate
district with one unit per acre.
~. Lambert questioned the density of rural residential and
Mr. King informed him it was one unit per five acres. He
explained how it was not being taken out of residential develop-
ment, but retaining the areas of a rural nature allowing for
preservation of agriculture and allowing for the full develop-
ment of the eastern communities. The development will depend
on the water resources.
Mr. Annunziato requested Mr. King to explain clustering fur-
ther. ~. King informed them that this was currently being
researched and clustering is allowed in single ownership
developments which could be done under a PUD. He explained
how Martin County permitted clustering on a 100 acre parcel
of land with five unit density by subdividing 20 acres with
one acre lots and the remaining 80 acres could be actively
farmed for the home owners. Mr. Annunziato asked if any pro-
blems were anticipated and M~. King replied that they would
not have much problem with the single ownership as it is an
extension of a PUD.
Mr. Lambert asked what stage of preparation they were in and
~. King replied that in Palm Beach County, there was a unique
situation in relation~ to the 1975 Act because they had al~
ready prepared the elements to meet the Area~ide Planning
Act and are making revisions based on public service elements
produced. They will make revisions to the Land Use Plan and
then make revisions to the comprehensive planning development.
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONI~G BOARD
PAGE ELEVEN
MARCH 22, 1 977
~. King continued that the methods by which they intend to
make preservation will be in separate elements. Not one of
the requirements is a Stat~-wide act. Mr. Lambert re£~er~ed
to the local municipality having a time period for review and
asked how much time we will have since it adjoins our area
and definitely involves us? Does he expect approval tonight?
Mr. King explained that it would not be concluded until infor-
mation was received on transportation, roads, public utilities,
etc.
Mr. Lambert asked if Boynton Beach had a representative
serving on the Land Use Board and Mr. Eing informed him there
were three representatives from the south end of the County.
~. Lambert referred to the Act specifically stating all
local municipalities should have one member. Mr. Eing in-
formed him there was a very concrete section~ithin the Act
specifying the amount and degree of public announcements.
Mr. Lambert read from the Act that each local government was
entitled to one representative on TAC. Mr. King informed him
this was primarily entered towards the transportation study.
Chairman Ryder stated he understood they have the Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Group, the County Planning Board, the
Area Planning Board and this Board. He understands that the
County Commissioners indicated the Area Planning Board was in
excess. How do we all operate together? Mr. King replied
that this was being researched. There is an Advisory Board
reporting to the County Commissioners now. He explained how
the Area Planning Board had specific significance. At the
same time, there is the 1975 State-wide Act and in that case,
the Board of County Commissioners have appointed themselves
for the unincorporated area as the local planning agency.
They are taking the initiative to inform municipalities what
is being planned. They are trying to coordinate all compre-
hensive planning action. The Board of County Commissioners
have moved in favor of revision, but have not specified num-
bers. They have gone back to the 1972 Plan and on the basis
of elements ~n the 1974 Act, they have attempted to revise
the 1972 Plan. Also, from the School Bos~d, there is a pro-
jection of over 200 additional schools being needed.
~,~s. Huckle asked if the transportation authority got into
this planning regarding rapid transportation and ~. King
informed her they were trymng to tie this into this revi-
sion. With the expanse of low density developments, such as
one unit per acre, it would be economically unfeasible to
initiate rapid transportation for the Rnincorporated areas.
They believe in showing corridors of more intense develop-
m~nt with open spaces which will allow for feasi~l&emass
~ansit.
Chairman Ryder referred to the treatment shown for Boca
Raton amd Mr. Eing pointed out that the Boca Raton reserve
MINUTES
PLANNING &- ZONING BOARD
PAGE ~ELVE
MARCH 22, 1977
area extending further west to the Turnpike. He added that
their controversy centers on approved developments south of
Glades Road, which have been approved by the County in the
past. This particular area is regarded as being committed
for development. This is one area they cannot make major
revisions to. This is the same as the area east of ~litary
Trail in this area. Mr. Lambert stated he still was not
clear why the Boca Raton annexation area is completely dif-
ferent than the recommendation for the rest of it. He does-
not understand why there is this difference. Why is every-
thing not developed zoned rural? Mr. King replied that the
recommendations were being made on environmental preserva-
tion. If it is developed to the full extenZ, it would have
an impact ~n all the wellfields to the east. He explained
how Boca Raton was experiencing this now. Mr. Lambert re-
ferred again to Boca Raton getting a different zoning treat-
ment and Mr. King replied that if it were up to Boca Raton,
they would change the single family recommendation. He ex-
plained how they were working under legal o~i~me~egarding
commitments to developments which have taken place, t~s.
Huckle clarified that Boca Raton has already established
developments to a greater extent than Boynton Beach and M~.
King replied that it was done by zoning actions of the County
Commission.
Mr. Lambert stated he could fully understand the problems re-
garding water and about the importance of keeping the areas
open; however, if the overall plan is going to allow for open
corridors for water to get back in the grounds he does not
understand why the municipalities should not be treated
equally and given the same development potential. Mr.
Annunziato informed him that the areas west of Boca Raton
are committed for development with some having occurred and
some only on paper. The areas west of Boynton Beach, parti-
cularly west of Military Trail, are not committed. There are
no planned PUD's on the ground. From a planning standpoint,
he thinks it is admirable that the County came up with this
plan with consideration given to the water supply. They have
also considered the traffic impact and we must consider that
we would have to support the massive population in that area
with City services. He thinks it would lower the quality of
life in Boynton Beach to permit the higher density. The areas
are basically agricultural and provide agriculture. These
lands should not be taken out ofI agriculture as they provide
a definite use for the United States.
Mr. Lambert asked about the area east of the Turnpike and M~.
Annunziato informed him this was one unit per five acres and
there was the potential for clustering developments. He then
explained the various zones and density allowed. M~. Lambert
replied that he had no questionssabout the definitions, but
he hopes the Board is given enough information so they can
fully digest this. They are talking about a lot of land area.
MIN~ITES
PLAh~-ING & ZONING BOARD
P~GE THIRTEEN
MARCH 22, 1 977
~. King stated if Boca Raton had the same opportunity for
major revision that Delray Beach and Boynton Beach have in
the areas west of their immediat~ corporate limits, there
is not a soul in Boca Raton who would not jump at it. Mr.
Annunziato agreed and added that Boca Raton keeps ask~ing for
reduction in density. Mr. Lambert questioned all the commit-
ments and Mr. King pointed out and named the various d~velop-
ments.
Mr. Ming then shelved a plan for the area immediately west of
Congress Avenue from Boynton West Road to Lawrence Road.
Chairman Ryder asked if the Debartolo Shopping Mall was still
being planned and ~. King replied: yes, extensions of time
have been given and they are still receiving inquiries about
it. He then explained the various zoning categories ~ecom-
mended Eor this area.
Chairman Ryder asked if F~. Ming was prepared to leave the
maps presented with the Board and Mr. King advised that he
~oul~ forward a copy of the front sheet which was acted on
today. Chairman Ryder requested any information they could
send to the Board.
~. King then suggested that all the representatives should
attend the Water ~nagement District Meeting. He explained
how he thought they would have some enlightening facts for
all the decision makers in Palm Beach County relative to
land planning.
Mr. Annunziato then referred to the area between Lawrence Rd.
and Military Trail and ~. King informed him this was pro-
posed to remain in the current single family zoning. ~.
Lambert referred to the City owning some land in this area
and they discussed the planned use. Mr. Annunziato clari-
fied that this area is in the Boynton Beach reserve annexa-
tion area aud is planned for single family, so there is more
density than apparently shown. ~. King agreed and stated
he had only referred to the areas being revised.
Mr. Lambert asked in what capacity this was being presented?
How can the Advisory Committee accept it without local input?
M~. ~ing informed him this was an ongoing program of inform-
ing the municipalities of what the land use revision plan is
about. There will be ample time for the local public and
municipal representatives to give input. Mr. Annunziato
informed them that the City of Boynton Beach has no official
capacity to give input regarding the zoning of this land.
According to the Comprehensive Planning Act, the City and
County may join, but as it stands now, the City does not have
joint responsibility for this area. We can voice our objec-
tions vocally or in writing. He feels it would be better to
put them in writing and the County would be obliged to answer
them, but he does not think the County would be obligated to
change the plan. The presentation tonight is complimentary.
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
PAGE FOURTEEN
MARCH 22, 1977
Chairman ~der then thanked Mo. Eing for the presentation
and added that he ~could see why he chose Boynton Beach as
the first municipality rather than Boca Raton. He requested
Mr. King to send a copy of his proposal to Mr. Annunziato.
Chairman Ryder then declared a five minute intermission.
reconvened the meeting at 9:40 P. M.
He
SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Bonanza Sirloin Pit
3675 $. Federal Highway
Bonanza of Palm Beach County, Inc.
Daniel J. O'Brien
Restaurant
Mr. Annunziato requested the members to refer to the large
plan and informed them this was proposed to be nestled in
the southeast corner of the Gulfstream Mall. There is access
to Gulfstream Blvd. and Route 1, as well as to the Shopping
Center parking lot. Concerning the staff recommendations,
the Engineering Department has requested grade elevations to
be shown in the parking lot subject to D.O.T. and County
approval of the curb cuts.~ There is a joint recommendation
from the Police Department and himself to eliminate the curb
cut on Gulfstream Blvd. for safety purposes and the recom-
mendation is to utilize the driveway approximately 87 ft.
west of the curb cut.and he explained. The access to U. S. 1
will remain.
Chairman Ryder asked if there was any prohibition where they
could go from this area to the Gulfstream Mall on the part
of the center and Mr. Annunziato replied there wasn't to his
knowledge~and one entrance to the shopping center is shown.
There is an existing driveway and it may require widening
the la~eto 30 ft. for safety. It would eliminate one curb
cut on a congested street. He then pointed out th~ recom-
mendation on the plan and the members studied the plan.
~. Lambert as~.ed if this property was ovmed by the same
people who own the parking lot and~. Annunziato informed
him that Bonanza has the option to purchase. ~. Lambert
asked how Bonanza knew they would always be allowed to use
this ingress and egress and Mr. Annunziato replied that they
would like to recommend this on this plan to improve the
traffic situation on Gulfstream Blvd. Chairman Ryder added
that it appeared if the other one was permissable, this
should be also.
Mr. Dan O'Brien appeared before the Board and informed them
he was the agent for Bonanza. On the point of access, there
are a few problems. It is true there is an option to buy
the property which would put the properties in two separate
MI/fJ TES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
PAGE FIFTEEN
~RCH 22, 1 977
ownerships. He thinks there would be an insurance problem
with access from the parking lot. There is a lease holder
on the Gulfstream Mall which has the final say on all park-
ing lots connected. If they follow these recommendations,
they may have to come back or only have one entrance. Mr.
Annunziato replied that it is apparent some consideration
was given of joining these two developments with there being
an opening to the north. He does not think it is unreasona?~le
to close the entrance on Gulfstream Blvd. and open one from
the parking lot. ~. O'Brien clarified that he was just
asking not to have the option closed. He is requesting that
they are not forced to go into the parking lot as they don't
know if they can. If the plan is approved with that stiD~u-
lation and the entrance is re~used from the parking lot,
they would have to come back. M~s. Huckle asked if they
had gotten approval for the north entr~uceway and Mr. O'Brien
replied that he had not shown it to the lease holder. He
added that the main lease holder is the grocery store and
they have full control over the parking lot.
~. Lambert asked if Mr. Annunziato had discussed this with
the Police Department and they felt it would be too much
traffic congestion clos. e to the intersection and Mr. Annunziato
replied this was correct and curb cuts should be eliminated
where possible. He added that this was a reasonable case
where property can be serviced adequately ~d itccould be
worked out with the lease holder. Mr. O'Brien stated they
would try to do this, but if they get refused, he requests
that the option be left open so they don't have to come back
to the City for review again. If they are not turned down,
they will follow the staff recommendations.
Mrs. Huckle asked if three exits were necessary or if two
would be satisfactory ~d M~. Annunziato replied that he
could understand the need for having an entr~uce from U.S. 1
for traffic. Mrs. Huckle clarified that if they only allow
one into the parking lot, it would be better to have it from
Gulfstream rather than from the north and Mr. Annunziato
agreed.
Mr. Lambert suggested recommending a curb cut at the end of
the property line instead of making them go to someone else.
If it is too close to the intersection, possibl~ recommend
it at the west ~boundary line. Mr. Annunziato replied that
there was one at the west property line. Mr. Lambert re-
ferred to the plan providing ingress and egress as required
and he does not believe they should be at the mercy of some-
one who might cut them off and there is this possibility if
the ownership changes. Chairman Ryder replied that there
was the possibility they could come baCk and request a curb
cut on Gulfstream Blvd. if cut off. Mrs. Huckle referred to
them including one on the north end of the parking lot them-
selves and ~. O'Brien informed her it was laid out this way,
but do not know if it will be approved.
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
PAGE SIXTEEN
M&RCH 22 , t 977
Chairman Ryder stated that it is close on Gulfstream Blvd.
and will pose proble~. ~. Annunziato added that it was
not unusual treatment to. join shopping center parking lots
with restaurants. Chairman Ryder agreed and referred to
having this at the Ranch House Restaurant on Congress Ave.
~. Lambert stated that theoretically they have to trespass
to get to their own property. Mrs. Huckle referred to banks
doing this in shopping centers. Mr. Lambert stated that if
they didn't have the right agreement, the owner of the parking
lot could prohibit customers from entering.. Mr. Annunziato
suggested they secure a written agreement. Chairman Ryder
added that if something happened, they could apply for a
curb cut.
Mr. Arena questioned if they were denied permission for both
accesses and the City denies this one, where does it leave
them and Chairman Ryder replied they would need another means
of access as it would not be feasible to limit it to one.
Mr. Arena asked if their request was unreasonable and if
there was any way it could be worked out and Mr. Annunziato
replied that the potential is there for the applicant to
reapply. ~. Winter clarified that it was suggested to pass
this with the possible approval of the lease holder of the
parking lot and if refused, to make reapplication to this
Board. ~. Annunziato clarified his suggestion was to ap-
prove this plan subject to staff recommendations and if it
doesn't work out, there would be a hardship on the appli-
cant and he could reapply.
M~. O'Brien referred to the time element involved to reapply
and stated they would attempt to get the west cut into the
Gulfstream Mall parking lot, but if they get denied, they
would like to save the trouble of coming through the go~ern-
mental channels again. They will show proof of the denial
and just don't wish to reapply and lose the time element.
Mr. ~nnunziato replied there was no guarantee the curb cuts
would be permitted and if they are denied, they would have to
reapply. Mr. Winter referred to this being an asset to the
shopping center and the probability of not being turned down.
~. O'Brien informed him that the lease holder has the right
to egress and ingress to his parking lot and he is just ask-
ing for consideration of the time limit.
~s. Huckte asked if the road right-of-way could be utilized
and ~. Annunziato replied that they~eeded the right turn
and ~. O'Brien added there was not enough room.
M~. Lambert stated that the applicant could very easily enter
into an agreement, but the property could be sold ~nd he does
not personally think this should be imposed on the applicant.
If this planlwas completely separate and the shopping center
wasn't there~ they would probably think this plan was great.
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
PAGE SEVENTEEN
MARCH 22, 1977
Mr. Annunziato po~ted out that the opportunity was here which
doesn't occur all the time and that is to eliminate a super-
fluous or unnecessary curb cut. They should recommend elimin-
ating c~mrb cuts whenever possible for safety. It is ques-
tionable whether they will receive permits from the County and
D.O.~. for these curb cuts also. Mr. O'Brien replied that he
did not see any problems from the County and D.O.T. Mr.
Annunziato clarified they were requesting it to be moved
about 75 to 90 ft. and he explained how the traffic flow
would be improved. M~. O'Brien replied that he was asking
the restaurant to go to the owner and lease holder to get
a perpetual easement. The owner and ieaseholder are put into
the developer's pocketbook; he could cha~ge an enormous fee
for this. He requests they leave a reasonable option.
M~. Lambert asked if the traffic flow was going to be any
different in the 87 ft. He thinks there will be more con-
gestion with traffic going in and out to serve the shopping
center and restaurant. M~. Annunziato replied that problems
are eliminated when joining uses of a driveway. When traffic
is off the street, it is going at a more reasonable rate of
speed.
Mr. O~Brien stated that if the access to the shopping center
as shown on the plan is refused, they could li~e without it.
Mr. Annunziato informed him~that if the curb cut is refused,
they must come back before this Board as the site plan will
be altered. Chairman Ryder remarked that they were posing a
lot of ifs.
~. Lambert asked if it would be feasible to have the appli-
cant do more homework on this plan and ~. O'Brien replied
that he would like to have the Board's action tonight. He
added that there was a time element involved.
Col. Trauger moved that the Planning & Zoning Board recom-
mend to the City Council that the site plan £or Bonanza
Sirloin Pit Restaurant located at 3675 S. Federal Highway
be recommended for approval with the stipulation of the City
Planner and Police Department to eliminate the curb cut on
Gulfstream Blvd. and make an entrance from the west side of
the parking lot and follow the other staff recommendations.
Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion. As requested, Mrs. Eruse
took a roll call vote as follows:
Mr. Arena - Aye
Mrs. Huckle - Aye
Mr. Winter - No
~. Lambert - No
Mrs. $chorr - Aye
Col. Trauger - Aye
~. Ryder - Aye
Motion carried 5-2.
MI~S
PLA~ING & ZONING BOARD
PAGE EIGHTEEN
~L~RCH 22, 1977
Col. Trauger stated he had nothing aga~ust Bonanza, but com-
mented that actually in looking at the Boynton Beach planning
area on U. S. 1, there are 21 restaurants between this mall
to the canal. Each new one brings in better and more modern
facilities. He explained how the economical competition
knocked out others. They~will have short orderc~oks up and
down Boynton Beach from one end to theo~ther. The marginal
ones get kicked out. He referred to the area looking like
the north end of Fort Lauderdale or the south end of West
Palm Beach. He has listen~e~J[ to the need argument, but also
listened to the need for low cost housing five years ago and
the area on North Seacrest is turning into a slum area.
Warehouse for Marcinkoski
Lots ~6, 37 and 38, Boynton Industrial Park, Addn. #1
West Industrial Avenue
Presented by Ray Marcinkoski
~. Annunziato informed the Board that the staff comments
were mino~, but the Engineering Department requests the
grades to be provided on the paving and the paving to be
6" rock and 1" asphalt. The Police Depa~tment has requested
the project to be lighted at night. His comment is the re-
ference to there being no side setbacks and the requirement
is ~5 ft. on one side, but the Board of Adjustment granted a
variance for this plan. He recommends approval subject to
these staff recommendations~.
Mr. Ray Marcinkoski appeared before the Board and informed
them the paving would be concrete and mercury vapor lights
will be installed as shown on the plan. Mr. Annunziato
referred to the request to have the lights on at night and
~. Marcinkoski informed him they would be on photoceells.
Mr. Annunziato clarified that the requirements were ts?~en
care of.
Mr. Lambert moved that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend
to the City Council the approval of the warehouse for Marcin-
koski subject to the staff comments. Mr. Arena seconded the
motion. No discussion. Motion carried 7-0.
Modification to Cranbrook Lake Estates PUD
S. W. Corner of Golf Road and Congress Ave.
Reduction in Units from 212 to 169
Presented by Joseph Cogen
Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that Mr. Cogen was unable
to be present and advised that he has requested to reduce the
density on this approved PUD. The PUD Ordinance provides for
modifications in a lesser manner. Mr. Cogen has requested
to reduce the density significantly. He reco~mmends approval.
~NUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BO~_~D
PAGE NINETEEN
M~CH 22, 1 977
Col. Trauger questioned the logic and ~. Annunziato replied
it was to make ls~ger lots shad change the tarEet market.
Chairman Ryder referred to this being recently annexed and
the State Statute referring to not increasing or decreasing
the density aud Mr. Annunziato informed him this was a PUD
and 0 to 6 units were allowed, if ~ had gone as a single
family development, they would have been compelled to hold
him to it. Chairman Ryder stated that in annexation, they
have the?~problem of not bed_ug able to change the density set
by the County.
Col. Trauger questioned the change in marketing value and M~.
Annunziato replied that it was hard to say, but most of these
lots border on water or the Village of Golf and they could
very easily be sold for $50,000 to $60,000 per unit.
The members then studied the plan.
Col. Trauger referred to this sounding like an improvement,
but asked Mr. Lambert's opinion regarding the current real
estate market in Boynton Beach an~ how it applied. ~.
Lambert stated that on the previous plan, ~. Cogen was talk~
ing about homes in the $50,000 to $60,000 range and the only
thing he c~u figure out now is that he wants to go to larger
lots. Mr. Annunziato added that possibly he was picking up
the ~uail Ridge or Village of Golf image being adjacent to
them.
~*~. Winter made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board
recommend to the City Council approval of the modification
of Cranbrook Lake Estates PUD located at the southwest cor-
ner of Golf Road and Congress Avenue for a reduction in units
from 212 to t69 as presented by Mr. Joseph Cogen. Mrs.
Huckle seconded ~the motion. No discussion. Motion carried
7-0.
Warehouse for Lazarus Salamon
Located in a Portion of Tract B at the North End of
West Industrial Avenue
Presented by M. Eovacs
Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that this warehouse will
be located directly north of the previous warehouse plan
approved just beyond the platted subdivision. This property
abuts a 50 ft. dedicated easement. The Engineer has requested
the easement to be turned into a right-of-way. Also, it has
been requested they extend the 6" water main to service this
property and pave the road to the north limits of this pro-
perty. There was a note for a future warehouse, which the
applicant has eliminated at his request, since there were
no plans submitted nor parking supplied.
MINUTES
PL~NING & ZONING BOARD
P_~GE TWENTY
MARCH 22, 1977
Col. Trauger questioned the specified use and Mr. mAP~/unziato
replied they would be rented. Chairman Ryder referred to the
access not being paved at the present time and stated the re-
quest was for 20 ft. of roadway and Mr. Am~unziato agreed.
Chairman Ryder questioned the location of the easement and
Mr. Annunziato explained how it was incorrectly noted and
clarified that it was a 50 ft. recorded easement by plat and
the Engineer is requesting this easement to be a right-of-way.
However, he does not know if there will be any problem for
the owner adjacent to this easement.
Ms. Mike Kovacs appeared before the Board. ~.~. Annunziato
referred to the 50 ft. easement and ~. ~ovacs informed
him that the 50 ft. easement goes to the beginning of the
plat backing up to the fence with no property on the other
side and it all belongs to ~. Salamon. M~. Annunziato
clarified that Mr. Salamon owns the easement and Mr. Kovacs
replied: yes, as shown on the survey. ~. Annunziato re-
ferred to the Engineer requesting this easement to be~a right-
of-way and Mr. Salamon replied he was in agreement. M~.
Annunziato added that the water line would also have to be
extended and M~. Kovacs agreed. Mr. Salamon asked if he
would get a reduction in taxes by giving this property to
the City and Mr. Annunziato replied that he assumed he would
and the City will accept it as a street when buil~ according
to specifications. Mr. Salamon stated that this was 50 ft.
taken from his land and Mr. Annunziato informed him that he
would be relieved from maintaining it and the easement has
been provided by plat.
_~s. HUckle asked if the parking spaces were determined from
the Co=~ercial Manufacturing Industrial Concern on Page 45
for a warehouse and ~zm. Annunziato replied that under Section
D, one space is provided for 450 sq. feet of floor area, etc.
}~. Kovacs added that they were figured according to the
footage and included an extra one.
Chairman Ryder as~_ed if he was aware of the requirements of
the staff and ?~. }fovacs replied: yes and there would be no
problem meeting them.
Col. Trauger made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board
recommend to the City Council the approval of the warehouse
for Lazarus Salamon located in a portion of Tract B at the
north end of West Industrial ~¢venue contingent upon the ac-
cepta~ce of the staff comments as noted on the drawings.
Mrs. Schorr seconded the motion. No discussion. Motion
cs~ried 7-0.
Fyrthe~ Discussion of the Palm Beach County Land Use Plan
~. Lambert stated he thought it would behoove the members
of the Board to obtain a copy of the Comprehensive Planning
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
PAGE TWENTY-ONE
~CH 22, 1977
Act. From reviewing it, he personally does not think they
are getting a fair shsd~e on this. The basic terminology is
not that technical. Extra care should be taken that the
plans clearly reflect local comments and objections, etc.
He does not know how they can possibly give their input
when the tentative plan was approved this morning. The
Act states specifically that intergovernmental cooperation
is necessary. Each local government is entitled to a re-
presentative on TAC. The committee met this morning and
adopted something and then it was presented to us tonight.
Chairman Ryder informed them that they have until July,
t979 to come up with a plan. Mr. Annunziato stated that
they are supposed to have adopted a Comprehensive Plan for
Development of the City which is why they applied for the
701 funds. In addition, they must have current housing and
land use element for HUD by August 22 to apply for funds.
~. Annunziato then stated that in reference to their input
into the County plan, they actlually have no official input.
The County was obliged to do what they did which was to
make a p~sentation and have public hearings. It is also
questionable whether we can force them to maswer our ques-
tions in writing. We have no .official operating procedure
with the County. The County and City could have planned
collectively for this reserve ,area had they enacted a joint
resolution. They do not have any working documents. Mr.
Lambert replied that accordingl to the Act, the whole concept
was to coordinate with the loc~al people. It is not coordi-
nation when they tell us what is passed. They are supposed
to get a feeling from us. Mr. Annunziato informed him there
was a section concer~ng responsibility among the local gov-
ernments and it requires forma~l actions, joint resolutions,
etc. He does not tuuow how act~ive the Advisory Committee is
or how active our member is.
M~. Lambert asked who the member was to the Advisory Commit-
tee and Mr. Annunziato informed him it was Tom Clark.
~'~uncilman DeMarco appes~ed before the Board and stated he
was in agreement with Mr. Lambert. He referred to the areas
west of Lake Worth, West Palm Beach and Lantana, and stated
just because Boynton Beach is not developed, they want to
penalize us which he does not think is fair.
~. Lambert continued that we may even agree with the plan,
but they should not come to useafter it is approved. He
is not saying they need a higher density, but we should have
more say. He was expecting the plan to be presented for the
Board's study during work, hop meetings. Mr. DeMarco added
that Boynton Beach has the highest land west of town for
subdivisions and Col. Trauger replied that no planning had
been made for that area.
MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD
PAGE %AYENTY-~¥O
MARCH 22, 1 977
~!r. Winter stated he did not see how we were being penalized.
He thinks we can avoid having sections like Greenacres and
high density. He thinks the plan is upgrading Boynton Beach.
~. La~oert replied that he just did not think Boynton Beach
had made a decision which way they want to go. Mu. Winter
continued that Boynton Beach does not want a c~Rster of homes.
~. Lambert asked when they were hea~?
M~. Lambert then read the nine steps required by the Act. ~.
Annunziato clarified that this was referring to local govern-
ment and in this instance, it is the County. ~. Lambert re-
plied that there has not been any intergovernmental coordina-
tion. Mu. Annunziato informed him the intergovernmental coor-
dination would be that the County is obliged to send us a copy
of their plan which they approve. We can make cormnents. Fir.
DeMarco remarked that it may be too late. ~. Annunziato
stated that this was the extent of our power. The County
may answer our comments, but do not have to do anything we
say.
Mr. Lambert ~eferred to TAC approving the first sheet this
morning and this is what he means by having no intergovern-
mental coordination. ~. Annunziato stated~he did not know
if ~. Clark was present and M~. Lambert replied that ~.
Clark would not be in the capacity for ~uswering for the
Planning & Zoning Board or City Council. He just cannot
believe that the Engineer is the representative for the en-
tire future development of the western area of town.
~. Annunziato stated he would like to see joint planning
in the reserve annexation area. Mr. DeMarco stated he would
£ight for it. Mm~s. Huckle added that they could be heard at
public hearings. Mr. Lambert stated that the intent was not
to do this, but to bring in intergovernmental cooperation so
the County cannot shove it down our throat.
Mr. Arena stated he would be interested in hearing the Coun-
cil's opinion of this and having it researched and obtaining
a legal opinion, M~. Annunziato informed them that a proce-
dure was worked out and the City and County can collectively
do the planning, but this must be done by resolution. Col.
Trauger recommended that the City Council enter a joint reso-
lution with Palm Beach County to do joint planning for the
area west of us. M~. Annunziato agreed this was the only
route to go. ~. Lambert remarked that it seemed like it
was somewhat after the fact. ~. DeMarco advised that this
was the first he had heard of it.
Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that the plan had not been
adopted by the County Commission and M~. Lambert questioned
where they stood on this as the County Commission may assume
MINUTES
PLA~NN~G & ZONinG BOARD
PAGE ~YENTY-THREE
M~.RCH 22, 1 977
there was intergovernmental cooperation, i~. Arena stated
they were getting into technicalities and he suggests they
recommend to the City Council that the County Commission be
informed that we were not advised we could be involved in
the zoning of the annexation reserve areas. Mr. Lambert
added that he thought the City Council should find out
exactly where we stand in reference to the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning Act.
Col. Trauger moved that the Planning & Zoning Board recom-
mend to the City Council that they enter into a resolution
with Palm Beach County to plan cooperatively for the reserve
annexation area of Boynton Beach and the member of the Tech-
nical Advisory Committee should be the City Planner. Mr.
Arena seconded the motion. No discussion. Motion carried
7-0.
Chairman Ryder stated that he thinks this need has become
apparent as a result of what happen~ddt~night with this
presentation. Fortunately Councilman DeMarco and Mayor
Zack were present.
ADJ OUR~NT
Mr. Lambert moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Arena.
Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned
at 10:50 P. M.
Respectfully submitted
Suzanne Kruse
Recording Secretary
(Three Tapes)
REVISED
AGENDA
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
Regular Meeting
Date: MarCh 22, 1977
Time: 7:30 P.M.
Place: Council Chambers
City Hall
1. Acknowledgment~ of Members and Visitors.
2. Read/ng and Approving of Minutes.
3. Announcements.
4. Communications.
5. Old Business.
6. New Business.
A . PUBLIC HEARINGS
Proposed amendment of Section 7 of zoning regulations
to replace the Office Park District in its~entirety
with a new District entitled Planned Industrial
Development District.
2~
Abandonment Request: ~.
20.-foot alley east of and parallel to F.E.C.R.R. between
N.E. 3rd Avenue and N.E. 5th Avenue.
Requested by: Robert Beane; Lucien A. Samyn; Dorothy
Brinkman; .~illian Wimbourne; Mike Brinkman.
Be
Presentation of Palm Beach County Land Use Plan for Boynton
Beach-~eserwe_annexa~ion_area by.~he_Palm~each_County
Planning Department.
C. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS
1. Bonanza Sirloin Pit
3675 South Federal Highway
Bonanza of Palm Beach County, Inc.
Daniel J. O'Brien
Restaurant
2. Warehouse for Marcinkoski
Lots 36, 37 and 38, Boynton Industrial Park, Addn. $1
West Industrial Avenue
Presented by Ray Marcinkoski
3. Modification to Cranbrook Lake Estates PUD
S.W. corner of ~otf Road and Congress Avenue
Reduction in units from 212 to 169
Presented by Joseph Cogen
4. Warehouse for Lazarus Salamon
Located in a portion of tract B at the north end
of West. Industrial Avenue
Presented by M. Kovacs