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_~