Loading...
Minutes 12-08-86MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1986 AT 7:00 P.M. PRESENT' Vernon Thompson, Jr., Chairman Robert Gordon, Secretary George Mearns Paul Slavin Ben Uleck Raymond Eney, Alternate Alan Newbold, Chief Plans Inspector ABSENT George An~pol, Vice Chairman (Excused) Lillian Artis (Excused) Danny O'Brien, Alternate (Excused) Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. He stated that a full Board was not present, but a majority Board was present to vote. Chairman Thompson introduced the members of the Board, Mr. Newbold, the Recording Secretary, and recognized the presence in the audience of Vice Mayor Carl Zimmerman, City Manager Peter Cheney, and former Board member Ted Blum. Also present in the audience were Building Official Edgar "Bud" Howell and Senior City Planner Tim Cannon. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 10, 1986 Mr. Slavin moved to approve the minutes as received. The motion, which was seconded by Mr. Gordon, carried 6-0. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. COMMUNICATIONS NOne. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Chairman Thompson explained to the audience that the Board bases its decision upon what members see when they visit the - 1 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 8, 1986 site in question to decide whether the hardship that exists was caused by the City, County or State government or was self-imposed. He read the six criteria the Board bases its decision upon. Chairman Thompson pointed out that this Board is not a majority Board. Any three negative votes will deny the applicant, and five votes in favor are needed to grant the request. Case %110 Applicant/ Owner: Benjamin & Sylvia Aaron Joseph & Sylvia Glass Request: Relief from Appendix A-Zoning, Section ll-H-16-b(1) requiring one (1) parking space per 100 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Church has 1,200 sq. ft. of building with 12 parking spaces required. Relief of 10 parking spaces requested. Address: Legal Description: 1103 N. Federal Highway Lot 1, Block A, LAKE ADDITION TO BOYNTON BEACH Recorded in Plat Book 11, Page 71, Palm Beach County Records Mr. Gordon read the application for Case %110 and the responses to the six questions in paragraph 5. Benjamin Aaron, 300 N.E. 12th Avenue, Hallandale, Florida 33009, thanked the Board for the extension of time (90 days) that was given him to apply for the variance, and he wondered if another extension of time could be given if the Church members were required to vacate the property, assuming the variance was not granted. Mr. Slavin had no questions of Mr. Aaron, but wondered why the minutes of his hearing at the Codes Enforcement Board pertaining to property violations were given to the BOA. He believed the Board was to rule on the property involved and the hardship involved and asked if violations of property were their concern. Mr. Slavin asked in what manner the Board should proceed. Chairman Thompson stated that the case was asking only for a parking variance, because there was not adequate parking. - 2 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 8, 1986 Twelve parking spaces are needed, and only two are available. Chairman Thompson said that the case came with a lot of problems, which would be in the back of their minds, but the question before the Board was parking. Mr. Slavin again asked if the Board should have been given the CEB minutes, since the violations discussed there did not have any bearing on what was being asked of this Board. Mr. Slavin added that Mr. Aaron had asked for an extension of time, but the BOA had no power to grant this request. Mr. Newbold advised that at the pre-variance hearing with his staff, it was brought to their attention that the variance may not solve all of Mr. Aaron's problems. It was suggested that these facts be brought to the attention of the BOA; this was the reason for the excerpts from the CEB meeting. Mr. Newbold further advised that Mr. Aaron was not aware that the BOA was a separate Board from the CEB, not having the power to grant his request for an extension of time. Mr. Newbold thought Mr. Aaron's reference to a license might be misleading. He explained that churches are not required to be licensed, but must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. He stated that another reason the minutes were given to the Board members was because of a reference that seating in the Church might be a higher number than stated by the applicant. If the seating count increased above a certain number, the variance count would have to be changed also. Mr. Slavin asked if that meant the Board should ignore the information sent by the CEB. Mr. Newbold answered that the information should be considered as one of eight facts. Mr. Slavin still did not see how the information had bearing on the parking variance decision. Mr. Newbold noted that the burden of proof of hardship was still with the applicant. The extension of time was granted to him by the CEB to see if he could clear up all the viola- tions; he would then go back to the CEB, who would make a final decision on how to handle the situation. During the time extension Mr. Aaron was granted, he was to get clearance for the parking requirement and make the necessary corrections to the other violations. Chairman Thompson said if the Board votes to grant the request, Mr. Aaron still has to meet the other City requirements; if the Board denies the request, he has to forget abOut everything. Mr. Aaron interjected that the report stated there were two parking spaces, but there were actually six spaces. He added - 3 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 8, 1986 that he is willing to make the additional changes to come into compliance with the City. Chairman Thompson stated that the information given to the Board says there are two spaces. Mr. Newbold explained that based on the City's requirements, only two parking spaces can legally be put on the property. The rest of the area Mr. Aaron referred to was actually the right-of-way. Chairman Thompson added that two other parking spaces belonged to the other businesses. Mr. Uleck told Mr. Aaron that he had been in violation for 2½ years. Mr. Aaron replied that he was unaware that he was in violation. Mr. Uleck responded that as an owner he was responsible to the tenants and he was responsible to find out the requirements of property owners. Further discussion followed. In response to Mr. Gordon's inquiry, Mr. Newbold stated that the Church does not yet have the Certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. Ida Driver, Pastor of Jesus In Action Church, explained that she did not know all the City procedures when her Church began renting Mr. Aaron's property. When the Church, previously located on 10th Avenue, was begun, they tried to follow pro- cedures as best they knew how. She added that the Church is trying to come into compliance as quickly as possible, but it does take time. She felt the Church was doing a great service to a community that had many crime and drug problems, and hoped it would not be uprooted from that location. Mr. Eney asked Pastor Driver how many people used cars to attend the Church. She answered that the Church has a car- pool and uses a van to pick up members; normallY there are very few cars there. Mr. Eney believed the Board should stick to the issue of parking; Mr. Uleck argued that the other violations should be taken into consideration. Chairman Thompson responded that the issue was parking; if the variance was granted, it would be up to the Building Department to enforce the other violations. He added that it was impossible to add 10 more parking spaces to the property. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. There was no response. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wished to speak against the granting of the variance. - 4 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 8, 1986 Don BiesendOrfer, owner of the property at 1120 N. Federal Highway, asked if an occupational license was needed by the Church. Mr. Newbold again explained that religious organi- zations are exempt from occupational licenses, but have to go through the same procedure to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Biesendorfer wondered how the Church had been operating without a Certificate of Occupancy. He also thought the property in question was inadequate for the needs of the Church and additional parking spaces were impossible. Mr. Biesendorfer remarked that he could see granting a variance if there were 10 spaces and an additional 2 were needed, but not if there were 2 spaces with an additional 10 needed. Mr. Biesendorfer told Mr. Eney that the Church parking situation did not effect his property, because they mainly operate during hours when he is not there. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone else wished to speak against the granting of the variance. There was no response. Mr. Gordon read the following correspondence: The Alpine Seven Company, Inc., doing business as Alpine Florist, 1112 N. Federal Highway, by letter dated November 20, 1986, wrote that they had no objections to the granting of the variance requested. The company commented that most nearby businesses are closed when services are held and felt none would object to their parking areas being utilized. Mr. Slavin was reminded of a similiar case several years ago where a restaurant needed more parking space; a letter was written by the bank across the street giving permission to use their parking spaces after banking hours. Mr. Uleck said the parking spaces had to be on their property. Mr. Mearns read from the excerpts of the CEB minutes that the parking spaces must belong to the property owners and must be within 100 feet of the property. Chairman Thompson asked about the occupants renting parking spaces across the street. Mr. Newbold advised that the City recently adopted a new Ordinance that talks about shared parking. He said the renting of parking spaces was certainly a possibility. Bud Howell, Building Official, clarified that shared parking was permissible, but it must be on the same piece of property. Mr. Mearns asked what would happen if the variance was given and the owner decided to sell the propertyo Chairman Thompson - 5 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 8, 1986 said a stipulation could be placed on the variance that upon termination of Church activities, the original parking requirements would revert to the property. Chairman Thompson asked the time and frequency of Church services; Pastor Driver answered there were services Sunday at noon and in the evening, and any services during the week were held at night. Motion Mr. Uleck made a motion to DENY the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mearns. Chairman Thompson stated that "Aye" would be in favor of the motion to DENY the request. He said three negative votes would deny the request and five votes in favor would be required to approve the request. A roll call vote was taken on the motion as follows: Mr. Mearns - Aye Mr. Uleck - Aye Chairman Thompson - Nay Mr. Gordon - Nay Mr. Slavin - Nay Mr. Eney - Nay The vote was 2-4. had been DENIED. Chairman Thompson stated that the request THE BOARD TOOK A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AT 7:50 P.M. RESUMED AT 7:55 P.M. THE MEETING Case 9111 Applicant,/ Owner: Max Schorr, Trustee Agent: Roy O. Barden Request: Relief from Appendix A-Zoning, Section 7-C requirement of a minimum of 25 contiguous acres for a planned industrial district to be reduced to 10.841 acres. Location: Legal Description: S.W. corner of Miner Road and High Ridge Road See Addendum "A" attached to the original minutes in the City Clerk's Office. Mr. Gordon read the application for Case 9111 and the responses to the six questions in paragraph 5. - 6 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 8, 1986 Roy Barden, a landscape architect from Lantana, representing Max Schorr, stated that this was a hardship situation in which the owner's property is abutting a large industrial district; the owner wishes 'to develop his property in the same fashion, but cannot proceed unless the Board grants a variance to the 25 acre requirement. Mr. Barden stated that the case is a hardship because single family homes would be hard to sell across from an industrial area. Mr. Barden showed the Board a drawing of the 10 acre parcel and showed the surrounding areas that are Industrial in zoning and land use. He pointed out various buildings and roads on the drawing. He showed areas that have future industrial usage, according to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Barden said that if the variance was denied, the owners would be forced to build single family homes across from the industrial buildings. Chairman Thompson asked what was to the west of the property in question and how it was zoned. Tim Cannon, Senior City Planner, advised that this property is unincorporated and is zoned Residential (Single Family) by Palm Beach County. Mr. Cannon commented that when that property is annexed, it is anticipated that it will be annexed into a PID zoning district. Further to the west is the Boynton Beach Park of Commerce, which is also a PID. Mr. Uleck asked if Mr. Cannon said that property to the west was owned by the County. Mr. Cannon replied that is was zoned R.S. (Single Family) by the County. Mr. Barden added that it is a privately owned piece of property; and he repeated that it is unincorporated, zoned Residential by the County, and planned to be annexed and zoned Industrial by the City. When the owners agree to submit an application for annexation, the County and the City will readily approve it. Mr. Barden said that the City has already begun to show that unincorporated property in its Comprehensive Land Use Plan as Light Industrial. Mr. Uleck asked what would happen if the City decided to execute the zoning R-1AA or R-1AAA; Mr. Barden replied that they would violate the Land Use Plan. Mr. Uleck asked what would happen if the owner or developer wanted a different zoning; Mr. Barden answered the City could initiate an Industrial rezoning based on the Comprehensive Plan to prevent single family homes from being built in an area planned by the City to be a center for Light Industrial uses. Mr. Uleck thought the people of the City should be able to decide how they wanted the property zoned. He favored a - 7 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 8, 1986 Residential zoning, saying there is too much Commercial and Industrial in the City now. Mr. Cannon wished to clarify that the Land Use Plan is adopted by the City Council. The Council, by law, is supposed to adopt the Comprehensive Plan, including the Land Use Plan, and all development in the City should be consistent with the Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Plan specifically states that this area should develop as a PID, as opposed to conventional Industrial zoning. According to State law, all development in the City should be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and any development that is not consistent with the Plan is, supposedly, illegal. Therefore, technically, unless this property is zoned to PID, the applicant could not develop the property. Mr. Cannon imagined the applicant would ask to have the Comprehensive Plan changed so that he could develop it under a M-1 zoning. He repeated that the Plan specifies that this should be developed as a PID, and that all zoning, site plans and development orders are supposed to be consistent with that recommendation. Mr. Uleck inquired if this meant the adjacent land's zoning could never again be changed. Mr. Cannon answered that zoning and land use can always be changed, but as the Comprehensive Plan stands now, that area should be an Industrial Park under the PID zoning category. Chairman Thompson thought he could understand the City's point of view, but had trouble understanding the applicant's point of view that it was a hardship to have a residential development in this area. He gave the example of Hunters Run, stating that it is one of the most exclusive areas of the City, and yet it has commercial property across from it. Mr. Slavin wondered if the Board had the right to approve the rezoning to a PID. Mr. Barden answered that the question of zoning was not before the BOA, only the question of waiving the 25 acre minimum requirement. Mr. Slavin wanted to know if a hardship was, in fact, established and if so, by whom. Chairman Thompson said there were other tracts of land in that area that were less than the required amount, and he wondered if there would be variances requested on those tracts also. Mr. Cannon responded that this was the only parcel south of the future Miner Road that is under 25 acres. He anticipates that this would be the only variance from the 25 acre requirement that would ever come before the Board. Mr. Uleck asked about the property to the north of the pro- perty in question. Mr. Cannon replied that right now that property is zoned R-1AA. -- 8 -- MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 8, 1986 In response to Chairman Thompson's inquiry, Mr. Cannon said the hardship is caused by the City's Comprehensive Plan which recommends that the property to the south of Miner Road be developed as an Industrial Park and by the fact that it must specifically be developed as a PID. He repeated that according to State law, the property must be developed con- sistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which means the property must be developed as a PID or not at all. Mr. Slavin asked why the City did not annex the property first, and bring it under the Comprehensive Plan as a PID. Mr. Cannon explained that the property had to be annexed first, before it could go to the BOA for a variance. It was annexed into R-1AAA as a holding zone, until the applicant could apply for PID zoning and request a variance from the BOA. Mr. Slavin said that meant the hardship had been placed by the City, and asked if that was the case, why must it come to the BOA in the first place. Mr. Slavin added that they should not be concerned with zoning requirements, but just with the piece of property itself. He noted that in both cases tonight the Board was presented with evidence that should not have any bearing on the cases. Mr. Cannon repeated that the property had to be annexed first, before a petition could be made to the BOA. Mr. Slavin asked if the property had been annexed R-1AAA and now relief was being sought from R-1AAA. Mr. Cannon replied that relief was being sought from the 25 acre requirement. Mr. Barden interjected that they are not requesting zoning. He said that the owner has submitted an annexation applica- tion that has been approved, a rezoning application that had been approved by the P&Z Board twice and by the Council on the first reading for PID rezoning. Mr. Barden explained that the property has already been approved for Land Use Amendment, for annexation, and for rezoning by the P&Z Board and the City Council, subject to the final hearing held later this month; but under the City code, before the final rezoning to PID can be approved, the BOA must agree to the variance. Mr. Slavin wanted to know why the Board was not previously notified that previous applications had been made for zoning and annexation. Mr. Barden agreed that was a valid point. City Manager Peter Cheney wished to respond to Mr. Slavin's question. He explained that the act requested is the granting of a variance. The BOA grants variances to zoning - 9 - MINUTES - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 8, 1986 ordinances on whatever comes before them. One of the requirements of a PID zone is a minimum 25 acres. The tech- nical request before the Board is to grant a variance for that 25 acre requirement. If the variance is granted, then the City Council can legally zone this piece of property PID to be consistent with the surrounding area. City Manager Cheney adviSed that the PID is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In response to Mr. Uleck's question of how it got that way, City Manager Cheney said it got that way through the process of the Planning and Zoning Board and the Mayor and City Council making that recommendation and amending the Comprehensive Plan. Questions were raised during that pro- cess about the 25 acres. City Manager Cheney added it has gotten that way through a complicated procedure and advised that if the Board does not grant the variance, the land can- not be deVeloped as PID. In response to Chairman Thompson's remark about Hunters Run, City Manager Cheney stated that across the street it is industrial, but on the other three sides it is not industrial. He added that this property in question is only a ten acre island as opposed to 1,000 acres at Hunters Run. City Manager Cheney concluded by saying the Board is not being asked to rezone, but to grant a variance from the 25 acre minimum requirement. The result will be that the City Council will then be free to make a decision on zoning. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wished to speak in favor of granting the variance. Max Schorr, 2505 S. Ocean Blvd., Palm Beach, Florida, said he was glad it was clarified that rezoning is not what was being requested. He added that the rezoning issue had already been considered by the Zoning Board and the City Council. Mr. Schorr stated they were before the Board because they had a hardship. He said the property was an island surrounded by industrial property. He, too, commented that the Board's only decision was whether to waive the 25 acre requirement. Chairman Thompson said that the Board understood the issue, but there was still the question of hardship to be resolved. Mr. Schorr noted that there had been no objections to any of their applications thus far. Mr. Schorr, in response to comments bY Chairman Thompson, said that the residential area behind his property was to be annexed by the City and zoned PID. Mr. Schorr said there was no possible way to build - 10 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 8, 1986 residences on this property; no one would want to live in an industrial area. Mr. Schorr stated that if the variance were denied, the property could not be used at all. Chairman Thompson asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak in favor of granting the variance There was no response. ' Mr. Gordon stated that there were no communications on this case. Chairman Thompson asked if there was anyone who wished to speak against the granting of the variance. Lynn Huckle, 656 Castilla Lane, stated that as a member of the Planning and Zoning Board, she voted against this variance. Mrs. Huckle wished to point out a factor that had not yet been mentioned. Mrs. Huckle said that the property did not have an either/or situation; it was no~ a matter of Residential or PID. The property is in a holding Residential zone now, while requesting a variance to waive the 25 acre minimum requirement for a PID, not leaving them out of the prospect of developing the land industrially. She pointed out that a PID is completely different from developing the land as a 10 acre industrial piece. She added there are several tracts of land in that area developed that way; they are classified M-1. Mrs. Huckle conceded that these tracts may not be as well planned, and she realized the City would like the area to be very well planned. She believed, however, that PID zoning was set up with a 25 acre minimum for a good reason--so there would be room for buffers, setbacks, and adequate roads. The 25 acre requirement was decided upon on purpose, so the land could be developed properly. Mrs. Huckle repeated that the property could be developed under the Comprehensive Plan industrially, not as a PID necessarily, but industrially. Mrs. Huckle elaborated on what a 10 acre piece of property not controlled by PID would look like. She said it would be a small industrial park or set of buildings. Anything 10 acres or less would have to have roads, so that would leave the property with about 8 acres. Mrs. Huckle questioned what possible blight 8 acres could be in this great industrial expanse. Mrs. Huckle said that she voted against the variance in order to preserve the integrity of the new ordinance. She added that no one is asking the property owner to build homes there; the Residential zoning is a holding zone until it is rezoned - 11 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 8, 1986 by the City. Mrs. Huckle conceded that both the Planning Department and the City had good reasons for their recommen- dations, but She believed the ordinance should be upheld unless a hardship could really be shown. She did not believe that piece of M-1 would ruin the integrity of the surrounding, larger pieces of property in that area. Chairman Thompson asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak against the granting of the variance. There was no response. Chairman Thompson inquired as to the original plan for the land in that area. Mr. Cannon said that the Comprehensive Plan, including the future Land Use Plan, which will have the final hearing later this month, envisions this entire area developing as an Industrial Office Park. Chairman Thompson was not asking about the Plan now, he wanted to know if the original Plan showed all the land in the area being brought under PID zoning. Mr. Cannon said originally all the land shown in the gray area on the map west of High Ridge Road was anticipated to be developed as Residential. This included the piece of property in question. M-1 zoning has existed for some time to the east of High Ridge Road. In response to Chairman Thompson's question, Mr. Cannon said the area in gray would be developed in three or four unified Industrial Office Parks, and eventually all the property in the gray area would be subdivided into parcels. Chairman Thompson asked if the City would safeguard against parcels that are too small, so the PID would be as the City hoped to see it. He asked if it was the plan of the City to keep the property in large lOts. Mr. Cannon said that this land would be the only variance request; it was a highly unusual sitUation. City Manager Cheney thought Chairman Thompson might be asking if some of the land will be sold in lots of less than 25 acres. He clarified that the requirement is that the zone be at least 25 acres in PID. When this area was zoned, it was, and still is, owned by one property owner. The entire 600 acres was zoned as PID, but that does not prevent the land from being sOld in lots of less than 25 acres. The subdivision plan will have lots, Some of which may be as small as 5 acres. The zone and the Master Plan are integrated to one overall Master Plan, but some lots may be less than 25 acres. There will be other smaller than 25 acre lots, but never another zoning decision made for a piece of land less than 25 acres except for this variance tonight. The rest of the land other than this one piece, is owned by one person. - 12 - MINUTES-BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 8, 1986 Mr. Eney commented that it seems the Board was not informed of a lot of the facts that were brought out tonight and won- dered why this information was not incorporated along with the application. Mr. Slavin was glad City Manager Cheney brought out the fact the property would be subdivided. He still wondered if anyone would come in for variances in the future on the subdivided land. City Manager Cheney advised that there was no likelihood of this. There was more discussion of PID versus M-1. Motion Mr. Uleck moved to DENY the variance waiving the 25 acre minimum requirement on the property in question. Mr. Eney seconded the motion. Chairman Thompson stated the motion was to DENY the request. Mr. Slavin asked if there would be legal grounds for an appeal if the motion passed due to the fact that there was not a seven man Board; Chairman Thompson answered negatively and said the vote was not based on a majority vote. There was further discussion as to voting "Aye" versus voting "Nay." A roll call vote was taken on the motion: Mr. Eney - Aye Mr. Slavin - Nay Mr. Gordon - Nay Chairman Thompson - Nay Mr. Uleck - Aye Mr. Mearns - Aye Chairman Thompson stated that the request for a variance was DENIED on the 3-3 vote. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Gordon moved to adjourn, and the motion was seconded by Mr. Mearns. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Linda Warlick Recording Secretary (Two Tapes) - 13 - Road, between the church 'and High Ridge Road, should be placed in the "Local Retail Commercial" ~category, consistent with the Palm Beach County Land Use Plan. The parcel at the southwest corner of Hypoluxo Road and High Ridge Road, to a depth of approximately 300 feet, should be placed in the "Office Commercial" land use category. The large vacant parcels on the east side of High Ridge Road should be annexed only if analysis of the annexation applications shows that annexation would be consistent with the City's annexation policies and State statutory requirements. If annexed, these properties should be placed in the "Low Density Residential" land use category and should be developed so as to be compatible with the surrounding low-density residential subdivisions. The adjacent right-Of-way for Hypoluxo Road should be annexed only if there is reasonable expectation that most of the abutting parcels between High Ridge Road and Seacrest Blvd. will be annexed. However, the right-of-way for Interstate 95 and the Seaboard Airline Railway abutting any annexed parcels should be annexed, in any case. Area 48 High Ridge Shopping Center Site and Palm Beach Memorial Gardens A utility and annexation agreement exists between the City and the owners of the High Ridge Shopping Center Site, which is located on the southwest corner of Seacrest Blvd. and Hypoluxo Road. Palm Beach Memorial Gardens. may be required to apply for annexation if utility service to this cementery is expanded. These properties should only be annexed if found to be consistent with the City's annexation policies and State statutory requirements. Although High Ridge Shopping Center would be contigious to the City 'along only 25 percent of its boundary, it may be advantagious to annex this property because of the property taxes that this commercial development would generate. Also, annexation of the shopping center and cemetery sites would make annexation of parcels on the west side of 1-95 possible. High Ridge Shopping Center, if annexed, should be placed under the "Local Retail Commercial" land use category, while Palm Beach Memorial Gardens should be placed under the "Public and Private Governmental/Institutional" land use category. The adjacent right-of-way for Hypoluxo Road should be annexed only if there~is reasonable expectation that the parcels abutting Hypoluxo Road from High Ridge Road to Seacrest Blvd. will be annexed. The rights-of-way for Interstate 95 and Seacrest Blvd. adjacent to any these parcels, however, should be annexed with the adjacent properties. Area 49 UnincorPorated Parcels at Southwest Corner of Miner Road Extended and High Ridge Road This is an unincorporated enclave that should be annexed. This parcel should eventually be placed in the "Industrial" land use category and developed as a Planned Industrial Development in a manner similar to the adjacent Boynton Beach Park of Commerce. 124 L- 20 -Cana, I ..... _Boy.~tbn "Can~ __ 71 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK-'- AREAS Areas of Potential Land Use Conflict Areas of Existing Land Use Conflict Recommended Controls for Ahnexation Area Recommended Limits of Annexation BOYNTON BEACH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3 8-A TO BE ..'I" 'ADDED EVALUATION & APPRAISAL REPORT -- 1986 PREPARED BY: CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1986