AGENDA DOCUMENTS
.".-"" -. .W.' "..VV ..... V"...Q;,,::'*,V,*
~' .'-
/- r
,
\
1
I
i
I
V
VLI J. 1":1 l1AJ.'t"l t:LV
ll.~
MINUTES - REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON 8EACH, FlORI DA
JUNE 16, 1992
2.
Project Name:
Agent:
Owner:
Locat1on:
Oeseri pt ion:..
8aoltstQP
Thomas T. McMurrain
Ameriean Development Corporatfon c/o Richard Boyer
1895 North Congress Avenue
SIte Plan Mod'flclt1on; Request for site plan
approval to construct an 11,772 square foot retail
"bookstore as an outpar~el at the Target Shopping
Center.
Mr. Cutro said this is a request by American Development Corporation to allow
the construction of an 11,772 square foot bookstore at 1895 North Congress
Avenue, which 1s located in the Target Center. The applicant is requesting to
combine two existing outparcels from the original site plan and expand the floor
area to accommodate the proposed structure. Another outparcel exists on the
site. It should be noted that the applicant will need to have another traffic
stUdy done in order to develop that site. He has run up his sQuare footage to
the point that what he is proposing on that site will have to be rereviewed by
the County. However, that does not affect this site it the present time. There
is enough square footage left in the original site plan to allow this to go for~
ward. Staff reviewed the proposed site plan and found that the site complies
with the various codes of the City, including the zoning district it is located
in, the Community Design Plan, and the Landscaping Code. The Planning and
Development Board reviewed the proposed site plan and forwarded it the City
Commission w1th a reeommendation for approval.
Commissioner Aguila said at least two years ago when the Target site plan was
originally brought through the City, it was a project of his office. Since then
his office has done no wDrk for Target. Target is no longer a client ot his
off1ee and h1s office has no personal gain. Mr. Cherot asked Commissioner
Aguila if he has any work pending with that particular client or if he is owed
money from that project that might be paid if this were approved. Commissioner
Aguila answered in the negative. Mr. Cherof advised he has no conflict.
Motion
Commissioner Harmening moved to approve this request for site plan approval to
construct a 11,772 square foot reta1l bookstore as an outparcel at the Target
Shopping Center. Commissioner AgUila seconded the motion which carried 5-0.
c. Other
1. Request from Welter Dut~h to allow. lot zoned for residential
~~. and commertcal use to be ustd for cammerctal us. as allowed
by Appendix A. Sectton 3.g - d1v1s10n of lot of record (corner of
Boynton Be.c~ Boulevard and N. W. 7th Court)
Mr. Cutro said this is a re~uest by Walter Dutch for an exception to allow the
use of a portion of a lot that is split by a 20n1ng boundary for a C-2 zoning
use. This is allowed by Appendix A, Section 3.~.g. The subject property is
located at the northwest eorner.of Boynton Beach Boulevard and N. W. 7th Court.
The southern portion of the lot is zoned C-2, while the north fifty feet is
.
- 14 -
,;'....,~.
. . / .:l.~
,;,~."':.."
...... ,..
,.. .'
-'... -
I .Qiil,
MINUTES - REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
.JUNE 16, 199
zoned R-l-A and Mr. Dutch wishes to use the entire parcel as if it were zoned
C-2. It should be noted that a l~nd use plan amendment and rezoning of this
same property were denied 1n 19B7 by the City Commission and the Planning and
Zoning Board. Staff reviewed the request and feels it is reasonable since the
R-l-A section is approximately fifty by seventy, which would constitute about a
thirty-five hundred square 'foo~. lot. That lot is signif1cant1y smaller than
residential lots around it~. In addition. the west side 15 zoned C-l. The
applicant has agreed to limit thirt feet t dsca .
which would provide a thir y foot buffer between the house on the north side of
this property from any building that might take place. Originally 1t was recom-
mended that the north fifty feet be lim1ted to that; however, after looking at a
proposed site plan from the applicant, if parking is put back there, 1t will be
even a greater impact. to the hovses. It is better to put the parking in the
front and s11de the bui1d1ng back a little bit more. The applicant has also
agreed to make the building resident1al 1n characttr to fit in with the
surrounding houses. At 1tl June 9, 1992 meeting. the Planning and Development
Board reviewed this request and forwarded it to the City Commission w1th a
recommendation for approval.
Anna Cottrell of Urban DeSign Studio. 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm
Beach, stated that th1s w1l1 not only improve the developability of the one lot
that faces Boynton Beach Boulevard, but it also has the effect of eliminating a
currently nonconfonm1ng lot that 1s undevelopable. In addition, it gives the
City the ab111ty to impose some conditions on th1s development beyond the site
plan approval conditions.
(
d
I
I
~ ~j
r 1 Comm1ssioner Harmen1ng moved to approve the request from er Dutch to allow
, :: J a lot zoned for residential use and ccnmer-eial l.lse to be used or commerc a use
J ~. as allowed by Appendix A, Section J.g . division of lot 0 cord (corner of
e !: ~80Ynton Beach Boulevard and N. W. 7th Court. C0rm1Us1oner Walshak seconded the
j j 'l' motion which carried 5-0.
W
2. Request' \ 6 ion Of the ~nutb Raad PCD (West Boynton
Bou'. ~. ROI.d, southVlst corner), Tlra oaks PUD (East
~~- 'xtended $outh between the LWDD l-2S and l-26
tJ 0 I 'each Boulevard PCD (South $1de of West
D.. S B r!\ I ~"'c1 b.twa~n North Congreu AVlnul and ~nuth
()\ ~p .:-0 I' . -\\'c
Yl'"' C,O' ,,\0 .\
\ . .~ I f1 ./l{)N
W ...-;_ \ 0 i0 ~ & ~ A'Q,.. ,C ,
Kr. ~ C' \.. ~ I n pC; \
Con \"\ \'.\~. {''''"
Kru\ \).(\~.... ~b G. \/ I
for ~ ~' ~1) {).~c..
cant . O. ~~ 0"
Boynto. ~ ~ v\t f
tryIng. \1\'
the Cone. '~\"l
~ot1on
1.
p
series of three planned developments that
December.of 1990, which includes the
'd the Tara Oaks PUO. The City
,1nary plat and the site plan for the
'vtme"ts have already been approved
'1so had d1scussions with the appli-
to do of exotiC spec1es on the
some progress made 1n terms of
.IS request has been discussed with
.~DJect1ons have been raised to the
jl
- 15 -
....
~
Rumpf, Michael
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cherof, James
Friday, March 31, 200010:52 AM
Rumpf, Michael
Walter Dutch property -
In response to your memo PZQQ-Q68:
1. Based on my review it appears that there are restrictions on the property arising from the
property owners request in 1992. The property has use restrictions as set forth in the Commission
action reflected in the 6/16/92 minutes.- . -
2. My notes from our 9/22/98 meeting with Tom Hoadley indicate that we acknowledged that
there is a special exception to allow C-2 use on the residential lot and there should be a notation on
the zoning map.
3. The note on the map appears adequate to me.
4. The applicant's representations set forth in the 6/16/92 minutes should be treated as binding'
development obligations/restrictions.
1
,
--~----- ----
-
~
c--
-
DEVELOPIv1ENT DEP ARTIv1ENT
11EMORANDillv:[ NO. PZ 00-068
TO:
Jim Cherof
City Attorney
Michael W. Rumpf /VI wR jduu
Director of Planning and Zoning
FROM:
DATE:
March 13, 2000
SUBJECT:
Walter Dutch Lot of Record Case (aka special commercial exception)
Attached please find two documents, one being the minutes from the June 16, 1992 City
Commission meeting when the Commission approved the equivalent of a special
exception through the "lot of record" provisions within our code. Various points were
made at that meeting including commitments by the applicant to limit the design of the
property to minimize impacts on adjacent residential properties (e.g. limit the northern
thirty feet to drainage and landscaping and construct future improvements consistent with
residential character). The second document is a letter from the attorney that met and
discussed this matter with staff who does not reference any limitations other than just the
50 foot dimension (of Lot #11) that describes the area to be used for commercial
purposes. I am just requesting your opinion regarding the issues discussed during the
meeting such as the limitation to landscaping and drainage use and design restrictions.
Furthermore, I have attached a copy of the note and excerpt of the zoning map showing
the changes made to document the "lot of record" case. Please state in writing for our file
whether you believe that any restrictions have been placed on the property, and whether,
in your opinion, we have provided adequate documentation on our map.
Thanks, Jim
MWR:bw
J:\SHRDA T AIPlanningISHAREDlWPICORRESPIWait.r Dutch.doc