Loading...
AGENDA DOCUMENTS LAw OFFICES ATKINSON,]ENNE, DINER, STONE & CoHEN A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION WILSON C. ATKINSON, III KENNETH C. JEI\NE, II JESSE H, DINER ADELE I. STONE JAY COHEN DIAI\E AI\GELLA DAVID W, BLACK PATRICIA A, RATHBURN CINDY VOVA,KRATISH J, STEVEI\ WARNER KENNETH J, NOLAN CRAIG Z, SHERAR MITCHELL F, GREEN HAND-DELIVERED POST OFFICE DRAWER 2088 1946 TYLER STREET HOlLYWOOD, FLORIDA 33022.2088 TELEPHONE (305) 925-5501 BOCA RATON 429-3882 MIAMI 944-1882 December 17, 1987 TELEFAX: (305) 920-2711 File #19-0423-87 Carmen S. Annunziato, AICP Pl~nning Director City of Boynton Beach 120 East Boynton Beach Boulevard Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 Re': Watersedge and Adjacent Parcel/Land Use Amendment and Rezoning. Dear Mr. Annunziato: Please be advised that the undersigned Boynton Beach, Inc., the owner of Lots Hypoluxo Subdivision, represents Shooters of 8 & 9, Sam Brown Jr. I s It is not possible for my client to be present in person at tonight's City Commission meeting. He has therefore requested that this letter be submitted to the City Commission for their consideration with regard to the proposal for land use amendment and rezoning of the subject parcel. I would therefore appreciate your cooperation in presenting to the City Commission at their meeting tonight, my client's opposition to the proposed land use amendment and rezoning. My client's position with regard to the rezoning and land use change from Commercial to Residential remains as previously stated in my presentations on August 6, 1987, September 1, 1987 and Sep- tember 15, 1987, that the land use change and rezoning of this property from Commercial to Residential is not warranted. I refer you to my statements contained in the minutes of those meetings, which minutes are incorporated herein by reference. Once again, my client requests, based on the severe economic hardship this would cause and his belief that the City's action constitutes spot zoning, that the proposed land use amendment and rezoning from C-3 to R-3 be denied. ~ PAR/dw cc: City of Boynton Beach City Sincerely /) Board of County CommJ -'oners County Administrator Jan Winters Carol A. Roberts, Chair Kenneth M. Adams, Vice Chairman Karen T. Marcus Carol J. Elmquist Dorothy Wilken ,.. ~ Department of Planning, Zoning & Building John A, Lehner Executive Director January 26, 1988 Mr. Ra.lph Hook Department ox Community Axxairs '2571 Executive Center Circ.le, East Ta.l.lahassee, FL 32399 RE: City ox Boynton Beach Comprehensive P.lan Amendment (6A9) Dear Mr. Hook: The Pa.lmBeach County P.lanning Division has reviewed the proposed amendm~nt xrom the City ox Boynton Beach. The request is xor amending the .land use p.lan xrom .loca.l retai.l commercia.l to high density residentia.l on 3.75~ acres ox .land .located on the eastside ox U.S. 1, approximate.ly 1.75 mi.les south ox Hypo.luxo ' Road. Based on the inxormation provided the amendment does not appear to adverse.ly axxect the goa.ls and objectives ox the County Comprehensive P.lan and is not expected to have any adverse impacts on the County. , , P.lease be advised that these comments represent the staxx ana.lysis ox the proposa.ls. It shou.ld be noted that the Board ox County Commissioners has not taken an oxxicia.l position on is amendment. Shou.ld you require any xurther c.larixication or inxormation, p.lease contact this oxxice. Respectxu.l.ly, '-'~~'"!'"'""'1T~TmD '",' ': !:~.! 'V Jj;l , <;4 '1 ~~ Y)88 Stan Redick, P.lanning Director ,,,_i" I. ...... SR:RWW:jx FILE: J5\HOOK119 cc: Sam Shannon, Assistant County Administrator Dan Cary, Executive Director ox Treasure Coast Regiona.l P.lanning Counci.l Board ox County Commissioners Carmen Annunziato, P.lanning Director Teresa P. Cantre.l.l, Metropo.litan P.lanning Organization 3400 BELVEIlERE ROAD WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33406 . (305) 471-3520 7'~- TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL M E M 0 RAN 0 U M To: Council Members PbENM IID1 7A From: Staff Date: February 19, 198B Council Meeting Subject: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review - Amendment to the City of Boynton Beach Future Land Use Element Introduction Pursuant to the prov1s10ns of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, the Counci 1 must be provi ded an opportuni ty to review and comment on comprehensive pl an amendments pri or to thei r adopti on. The City of Boynton Beach has submitted a proposed amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs, which in turn is seeking Council's comments. Counci l' s revi ew of the i nformati on forwarded by the Department of Community Affairs is in the context of the relationship of the proposed amendments to the regional policy plan developed pursuant to Section 1B6.507. If a conflict with adopted plans or pOlicies is identified, the regional planning agency is to specify any objections and may make recommendations for modifications. Council also provides informal comments to the local government through a spirit of cooperation, and technical assi stance on matters rel ated to the proposed amendments. These advi sory comnents are aimed at providing coordination between the local and regional comprehensive plans. Background The City of Boynton Beach is considering one amendment to the Future Land Use Element. The proposal is to change the land use designation from Local Retail Commercial to High Density Residential on a 3.7-acre parcel located on u.S. Highway 1 (see map). Evaluation The proposed amendment has been revi ewed in accordance wi th the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, Council's review procedures, and Council's adopted Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. The following comment is offered as a result of that review. '-' ...., ... IF .. Based on the i nforma ti on provi ded, the proposed amendment does not appear to be in confl ict or inconsistent with the policies contained in the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Reconmendation Council should adopt the comment outlined above and approve its transmittal to the State Department of Community Affairs in fulfillment of the requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. Attachments .. SUBJECT PARCEL City of Boynton Beach Proposed Land Use Amendment ~~~-.t: 1 ~ ..., " METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF PALM BEACH COUNTY 160 Australian Avenue. SUite 301. West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Tel (305i 684-4170 January 14, 1988 Mr. Peter Merritt Regional Planner Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council P.O. Box 1529 Palm City, Florida 34990 Subject: City of Boynton Beach-Proposed Land Use Amendment Dear Peter: The Metropol itan Planning Organization (MPO) staff has reviewed the proposed land use amendment submitted by the Ci~y of Boynton Beach. The proposed amendment does not. appear to be in conflict or inconsistent with the adopted MPO goals or objectives. Sincerely Yours, ..--.-- ~t~ Teresa P. Cantrell cc: S. Philp 2 --~~ .J j '- .,...t-~ ":":o,j- . " ~-~~..;~\. , ..;.~.-..- po, Box 2429, West Palm Beach, Floroda 33402-2429 n...., - , ~~.......:t.J ,.,'::~~\\. ""....,\"" .... UUIUJ '-'u.......~~IUUCI~ (.;ounty Administrator Jan Winters '7~ A. Roberts, Chair ,lIleth M. Adams, Vice ....lIairman Karen T. Marcus Carol J. Elmquist Dorothy Wilken .~ .. Department of Planning, Zoning &: Building John A. Lehner Executive Director ~-~.- . \ ,- . '. - - ~-. --. --;---, :. . .January 26, 1988 i:' T I~,"'. Ui._ 1 f:,I'.1 (. i.) '.I' j _~~:- ~,~~R. :.: ;:." . .l........~~"'"',,:d .-.. .....- Mr. Ra~ph Hook D.par~men~ o~ Commun~~y A~~.~r. '2~71 Execu~~v. C.n~.r C~rc~e, E..~ Ta~~ah....e, FL 32399 P~~~ihij~ 1.1 . .;: " ..: ~ \I-t.'\ii Ii ,,: ~.. REl Ci~y o~ Boyn~on B.ach Compreh.n.~v. Plan Am.ndmen~ (GA9) D.ar Mr. Hook 1 Th. P.~m a.ach Coun~y Plann~ng Divi.~on ha. rev~.ved ~h. propo.ed am.nd.~n~ ~rom the C~~y o~ Boyn~on B.ach. Th. r.que.~ is for amending the land u.e plan ~ro. loca~ r.~a~~ comm.rc~al ~o h~gh den.~~y r..~den~~al on 3.75~ acre. o~ land loc.~ed on ~he ...~.~d. o~ U.S. 1, .pprox~..~.ly 1.75 mi~.. sou~h o~ Hypoluxo . Road. Ba..d on ~h. in~or..~~on provid.d ~h.' am.ndm.n~ doe. no~ app.ar ~o adv.r..ly a11.ct ~h. goa~. and objec~iv.. o~ ~h. Coun~y. Compr.h.n.~v. Plan and is no~ .xpec~.d to have any adver.e impac~s on ~h. County. . . Pl.... b. advis.d ~ha~ ~h... com.en~. r.pr...n~ the ata11 an.~y.i. o~ ~h. propo..ls. I~ should b. not.d th.t th. Board of County Commi..ioners h.. not taken an 0~1icial po.it~on on i. amendm.nt. Should you r.qu~r. any ~urth.r c~.r~~~c.tion or iniormat~on, pl.... contact th~. o11io.. R..pect1ully, 91 St.an R.dick, P~anning Director SR1RWWlj1 FILE: 35\HOOK119 co: Sam Shannon, A..~.~.nt County Ad.~n~.trator Dan Cary, Execu~~Y. Dir.c~or 01 Trea.ure Coast R.giona~ P~anning Counci~ Board 01 County Co..i..ioners Carm.n Annunziato, Planning Director T.re.a P. Cantre~~, ne~ropolitan Planning Organiza~ion 3 3400 BEI.VEDERE ROAD . WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33406 . (305) 471-3510 : . Goals and Plannina Committee: Daqney Jochem, Chairman Karen Marcus John Acor Thomas G. Kenny Kevin Foley Marie Horenburger Carolyn Eggert Joan Jefferson Jim Minix Councilmember Foley moved confirmation appointments. The motion was seconded Roberts and carried unanimously. of by the above Commissioner MOTIO~ CONFH PROJECT REVIEWS INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION AND REVIEW (ICR) LOG Staff indicated that seven proj ects were reviewed and all were found to be consistent with Council's Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Eggert Commissioner Bowman to approve the ICR log. to a vote the motion carried unanimously. and seconded by Upon being put MOT! O~ APPRm COUNCIL REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS Staff reported that Local Government Comprehensive Plans, developed through a substantive public hearing process, represented a promise to the citizens of a particular area as to how the individual local government was going to do business, and are the basis for all land use and development decisions. Staff informed Council that the current plans lacked evidence to show that the government could deliver the necessary infrastructure and services concurrent wi th need because at the time they were originally developed, there was not a requirement in the law to show financial abili ty to deliver what is necessary and planned. The current plans also lack any requirements to be consistent with any State and regional direction because at the time they were developed there were no State or regional plans. The State has since been required through the LegiSlature to develop a State Plan, and in turn the Regional Planning Councils were required to develop plans consistent with and to further the State Plan. Staff indicated that Council becomes involved in local government plans when a change is proposed. The local government has its local planning agency review the proposed change and comment on the consistency of that change with the local government plan; the local government then passes those comments on to the 3 ... 'WI .... ,- ci ty or County Commission who hold a public hearing. The proposals are also passed on to the Department of Community Affairs and the Regional Planning Council. staff indicated that the Regional Planning Council gets all the plan amendments being considered, even those not supported by the local government. staff indicated that the type of criteria that should be demonstrated to allow a change include: 1) a reason for the change from a comprehensive point of view, balancing all issues such as where are the well fields located, what adjacent uses are, etc.; and 2) that the change is in the public interest, or at least not in conflict with public interest given stated objectives of the local government, the state, and the Regional Planning Council. staff reported four reasons to entertain changes: 1) the existing plan is not going to get the local government where it wants to be and needs to be amended to reach their goals; 2) the goals change, so obviously changes have to be made to the plan; 3) better ways to achieve sought-after goals may arise; and 4) the existing plan may be inconsistent with state and Regional Plans. Staff expressed its position on reviewing amendments at this point in time--Often when an amendment is received for Council review and comment, it is not accompanied with any proof, for example, that the local government has the financial ability to deliver infrastructure concurrent with development, which is a requirement of the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff does not know that the local government can not provide services, but is not assured that it can provide services either. Staff indicated that given the requirements of growth management, after 1989 it will be tougher to make local government plan amendments because the local government will have to provide proof of its ability to provide services to accommodate changes. Staff informed Council that it was a worry to staff as well as local government that during the next 18 months preceding growth management implementation, a number of amendment requests would be made--people will want to get their property vested while the process is relatively easy. Staff indicated that its recommendation on local plan change agenda items will be that those amendment proposals that are clearly consistent or amendments proposed due to a Development of Regional Impact where postponing decision could create a hardship be reviewed and a decision be made by the local government, making the best recommendation possible based on information available; but those proposed amendments that come through in order to be vested under the old process be reviewed as "potential problems" as the information is not yet available to make an accurate determination; however, the answers will be available by the Spring of 1989. Councilmember Jochem stated that she fel t this would be putting a moratorium on land use changes and suggested that it be brought to the next meeti~g for comment. 4 Councilman Helm asked if staff was suggesting that the amendments be reviewed according to 1989 criteria, or suggesting that Council refuse to review land use changes. staff indicated that by law, all amendments had to be reviewed by Council and that staff would review and present each amendment received: however, staff simply wanted Council to be aware of the reasons for certain recommendations and was seeking Council input. Councilman Helm suggested sending a notice to the local governments to let them know how Council will comment on land use changes that may have a negative effect on the 1989 comprehensive plans. Mr. Chuck Potter, President of the Audubon Society of the Everglades, stated that he concurred with staff position and expressed that the Society would be in favor of a motion to put the local governments on notice. commissioner Marcus moved that staff bring this issue back MJTIm to the next Council meeting and prepare a letter to .local governments advising them that Council will be considering amendments according to the 1989 requirements. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Roberts. Councilmember Jochem requested that the letter to governments also ask that they include in their packets information that will support the amendments. local review Upon being put to a vote, the motion carried unanimously. VOTE ( MOTIm LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEWS CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH LAND USE AMENDMENT Staff reported that one land use amendment was reviewed from the Ci ty of Boynton Beach, and it was not found to be in conflict with Council policy. Motion was made by Commissioner Bowman to approve staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert and carried unanimously. MOTIm APPRo\ CITY OF PALM BEACH GARDENS LAND USE AMENDMENTS Staff reported that three land use amendments were reviewed from the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Staff indicated that Items One and Three were not in conflict with Council policy. Palm Beach County had expressed concerns with Item Two related to adherence to Palm Beach County's Thoroughfare Right-of-way Protection Plan. 5 ., "WI Commissioner Marcus questioned Council policy 'on the creation of enclaves, and informed Council that Palm Beach County is in litigation on this one particular annexation because they believed it created some serious enclave issues. She indicated that approximately only six percent of the annexation area was contiguous with Palm Beach Gardens. ,. 1:. r Staff indicated that annexation issues are treated as local issues. Council does have a policy addressing enclaves that may interfere with delivery of services; however Council does not have the mechanism for commenting on annexation itself. Staff suggested that Council move to amend staff recommendations to note the fact that this annexation has created an enclave which could be against Council policy because of service delivery problems. Sam Shannon, Assistant Palm Beach County Administrator, indicated that the map accompanying staff recommendation did not correctly identify the current city limits of the City of Palm Beach Gardens, but included areas currently under consideration for annexation. Mr. Shannon also suggested that in dealing with the issue of right-of-way protection, it be added to staff comment that any development approval be withheld until resolution has occurred. Commissioner Marcus moved staff recommendations to be amended as per Mr. Shannon I s suggestion to protect the Thoroughfare. Commissioner Minix indicated that agreement is made that no development orders be issued. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Horenburger and carried unanimously. MOTION AMEND APPROV PALM BEACH COUNTY LAND USE AMENDMENT Staff reported that one proposed amendment to Palm Beach County's Future Land Use Element was received and reviewed. The amendment would allow excavation specifically for roads (U.S. 27) in an agricultural prOduction land use ,designation, affecting approximately 500,000 acres in Palm Beach County. Staff indicated that the proposed amendment was not in conflict with Council policies provided that surveys are conducted so that mining does not occur in environmentally sensitive areas, and that proper reclamation and mining procedures be used which are outlined in various policies throughout the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan. Staff informed Council that a letter, attached to staff recommendations, was received from Alan Ciklin, Esq., which addressed the issue of this being an emergency amendment. Staff indicated that the issue of whether this amendment is an emergency or not is not up to the Council, but is up to Palm Beach County who has decided this amendment should be considered an emergency. 6 APPLICANT: City of Boynton Beach AGENT: Carmen S. Annunziato OWNER: Shooters of Boynton Beach, Inc., Waters edge Homeowners Assoc., James K. Abbot, Douglas J. Stowers and Barbara D. Stowers, Patrick R. Hans, Edward R. Tinari and Francis R. Tinari, John T. and Loretta Haines, J.P. and James Laudicina and Elizabeth Laudicina, Robert B. Taylor Jr., Michael N. and Cheryl A. Jarvis, S. and Josephine G. Stillpass, Robert G. Emmett et al., Lisa Landis, N. W. and Cynthia S. Greenhouse, Kathleen N. Eaton, Robert L. and Judy R. Herold PROJECT NAME: Watersedge and adjacent parcel PROPOSED USE: Multiple family housing and other R-3 uses LOCATION: 2100 block of North Federal Highway AMEND FUTURE LAND USE PLAN From: Local Retail Commercial To: High Density Residential REQUEST: REZONE: From: - C-3 Community Commercial To: - R-3 Multiple Family Dwelling Copies of this land use amendment and rezoning application are available for review by the public at the City of Boynton Beach Planning Department, at 200 North Seacrest Boulevard, Boynton Beach . All interested parties are notified to appear at said hearing in person or by attorney and be heard. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Planning and Zoning Board or City Commission with respect to any matter considered at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. BETTY S. BORONI, CITY CLERK CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA -- PUBLISH: THE POST Local News Sectio 11/23 & 12/4/87 ~ -- TO: 8tJITJVING VEPT. ---- CITY ATTORNEY ---- CITY CLERK ---- CITY MANAGER ---- CODES ENF. ____ MMUNICATIONS CO N ---- CREDIT UNIO " ---- DATA PROCESSING ---- ENGR. VEPT. GMT. ____ FACILITIES M ---- FINANCE DEPT. RTMENT ---- FIRE DEPA GOI,F COURSB ---- LIBRARY ____ SERVICBS MGMT. ---- OcCU. LICENSES ---- PARKS & REC. --:'/,ERSONNBL ? pLANNING DEPT. ~ IC WORKS pueL G VEPT. NDUM -- PURCHASIN NG #90 -739 -- UTILITY BILLI ---- OTHER: -- -------- " , ------- ,/ ~ ARTMENT/ ______________ UTILITIES vEP EXTENSION:_____ FROM: _____ REMARKS: VATE: -------________ -- ATTENTION: 1JB ---- um Plat ;5ion voted to deactivate the 5 24 ERG's for use by the ~cxlngton Lakes projects. _~~~ons with the Health Department staff . ~'ldt.. they are willing to approve the Blum Plat project. wIthout risk to the other two projects, because they regard its size as insignificant. The purpose of this memo is to advise yourself and the Commission of this department's intention to approve the permit applications for the water system serving this development. We believe this action to be prudent in light of the City's prior commitments to the owner/developer of the Blum Plat, and also in light of the Health Department's continued cooperation. This action does not, ho~ever, reflect any substantial change in our reserve water capacity, which remains critical. gb bc: Pete Mazzella xc: Chris Cutro, Planning Vince Finizio, Engineering lR IF.C1ENEJD - -.,., ,~...'-'-" , ~, ~,'. ~ ,l;! .~ r-.., ~~; ,[ -..i'\;~'~ ~~~ ~:j)l , ~~~~..-_~..~~--=-_-r;:-:=1 -.----.--------- -------~ ~ MEMORANDUM Utilities #90-739 Tu: J. Scott Miller City Manager ~~ FROM: John A. Guidry Director of Utilities ' DATE: December 27, 1990 SUBJECT: Agenda Item - Update on Blum Plat On November 20, 1990, the City Commission voted to deactivate the subject Plat in order to recapture its 24 ERC's for use by the Lighthouse Square Marina and Lexington Lakes projects. Subsequent conversations with the Health Department staff indicate that they are willing to approve the Blum Plat project, without risk to the other two projects, because they regard its size as insignificant. The purpose of this memo is to advise yourself and the Commission of this department's intention to approve the permit applications for the water system serving this development. We believe this action to be prudent in light of the City's prior commitments to the owner/developer of the Blum Plat, and also in light of the Health Department's continued cooperation. This action does not, ho~ever, reflect any substantial change in our reserve water capacity, which remains critical. gb bc: Pete Mazzella xc: Chris Cutro, Planning Vince Finizio, Engineering lR, m,CJENEJD ~ ..,., '. '~...- I'~ 'A, \'..1 \"\,; i('.--I''\I'" ,< r'E~rl , r-:=--"="-~-~-'-~"'''''''''-'''-- .,-or_~