The URL can be used to link to this page

AGENDA DOCUMENTS G ~'blo ~~ ~'> i-- ~" ~(, ~I 'Il-3 )v f ,,{ ,! If I "" , 8,.:.;L If" """;'(1 ,--- ~ tJi., ;)52 o..i X" \" p{{ -;:J ,I , (Or K.. ~ 'l3/,,/l. C'~~f...r _ 4- J"",.L 5 ,4*!ys;s - L ~ Y" #- Es /.-fcs (0"" /,t/.A~~7 *_"7 / po pu(~ -M=4;'- E51,~fc ;t.5~:2 SF tin; ~ .t. I~ ctv~ ,,~y?$ 75 X ~ I ci2/!!J' c2 '17 ~ C;2,,-l. .1'~ ,..l, CO c 1~( 5;).";>Ci b~S '/.1<<- ~-=-- ~ !ok r~" : ;;? 'i7 is fr""'" I'pd u r;. b .,l.. 0 ( "'- -> /, {J .6.2. CC;Y> ,(; ~ 5 Le -d <-f<-JJ ,t (~ /-.>' PT- .> 6-- 1>"5 /,-q "'- ,- a2 ,1-{ b~ ,/.>~ f< Sr-vdr o--P" u-- > ~ .A60 tf~" 's .e$ f,.",.. Ie j)- tL ~ (...~ u-^,. f, - <:."" ;: r-/ ~l G 5""-(. <(<( .,-- ,.d~ cQ 5> tt eo. .;;;.-, '{(S c--,-K.." 0-- ('~ ~ ..zC-.J,...,C ...:( p/~\A-1, u-"",,--r,,,,"~A~, PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 97-f!) 1?1f~ TO: Chairman and Members, Planning & Development Board FROM: Tambri J. Heyden, Planning and Zoning Director DATE: March 7, 1997 SUBJECT: Boulevard Center - LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT INTRODUCTION: At the March 4,1997 meeting of the City Commission, the City Commission reviewed the above-referenced project and directed the project back to the Planning & Development Board for a review of aspects that may not have been originally reviewed. DESCRIPTION: You will recall that this project, which was first postponed by the City Commission at the December 17, 1996 meeting and postponed again on January 21, 1997 and February 18, 1997, is a request by Charles Putman and Associates, Inc., agent for the Morton Group, to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for a 2.5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, rezone it from R-1-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and to amend corresponding Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use on this portion of Area 7.a. The property is located on the south side of Boynton Beach Boulevard, between South Leisureville Boulevard and Northwest 8th Street. As described in the staff report (see Exhibit "A"-Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum #96-6~7), staff's recommendation included both a recommendation to deny the subject request, an~~<preferable alternative proposal for the property which would limit the northern portion of the property (approximately 220 feet) to the C-1, Office/Professional zoning district if developed in combination with the two small parcels between the funeral home and the subject property. Additional original conditions of, or features to, staff's alternative included the requirement that the applicant submit a traffic analysis for this alternative for transmittal to the State in conjunction with the review of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the limitation on uses allowed at this project to office, professional, or institutional (Public Usage) uses, the limitation on hours of operation and specific site requirements to address dumpster location and the construction of a buffer wall where the subject parcel abuts adjacent residential zoning districts. Subsequent to review of these requests by the Planning & Development Board on December 10, 1997, the applicant has agreed to certain staff conditions and has proposed modifications to certain conditions. Given that the modifications proposed to the conditions, and the new position of the applicant which now, in part, is consistent with staff's recommendation, have not been reviewed by the Planning & Development Board, the City Commission has requested this second review by this Board. Changes to original conditions were only made to comment #1 and comment #3. Comment #1 was revised to address possible legal complications caused by requiring the involvement of the adjacent properties. Revisions to comment #1 include the replacement of the existing requirement for the applicant to combine or unify his design with the design of adjacent parcels to the east, with the requirement to provide for future access between the subject property and the adjacent parcels through a stubbed cross-accessway. Condition #1 was also revised to limit the site to one driveway onto Boynton Beach Boulevard and one driveway onto N.W. 1st Street. Staff modified comment #3 to only exclude the recommendation to incorporate this recommendation for C-1 zoning into the text of the Comprehensive Plan if the application is withdrawn or denied. With respect to those conditions the petitioner agrees with, has not consented to, or proposes to modify, the petitioner agrees with the requirements of comment #1 (in part), and comments #2 and #3, and objects, in part, to comment #4. With respect to comment #1, the applicant has consented to the requirement to rezone only the northern portion (approximately 220 feet) of this property to C-1, Office/Professional (as the changes to this comment which address site access have just been inserted to address potential legal issues, they had not been reviewed by the applicant at the time that this memorandum was prepared. With respect to comment #4, the applicant objects to having prohibited several uses listed in comment #4 such as funeral homes, pharmacies, nursery schools/day care centers, and places of instruction and tutoring. RECOMMENDATION: Staff continues to recommend that the original request by Putman & Associates, Inc. to reclassify the subject property to Local Retail Commercial land use and rezone it to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, be denied, and as an alternative, recommends that a portion of the original site be reclassified to Office Commercial and rezoned to C-1, Office/Professional consistent with the all conditions indicated in Exhibit "8"- Conditions of Approval. T JH:bme Attachments xc: Central File D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\BOULEVAR\P&DREP2.WPD EXHIBIT "B" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM D D Revised Draft ~ Preliminary Draft Requested City Commission Meeting Dates D December 3, 1996 D December 17, 1996 D January 7, 1997 D January 21, 1997 Date Final Form Must be Turned into City Manager's Office November 25, 1996 Requested City Commission Meeting Dates D February 4, 1997 D February 18, 1997 o March 4,1997 D March 18, 1997 December II, 1996 December 30, 1996 January 15, 1997 NATURE OF AGENDA ITEM o Administration D Consent D Bid []: Public Hearing o Legal D Unfinished Business DESCRIPTION OF AGENDA ITEM (attach additional sheets and supporting documentation if necessary) - ~/ Mtt'>-~i(f ~ ~ \vl ~~ PI' II vff'J Final Submittal '~', ,~V-- .. ':J '7 i ~ ~\ '~4~ Date Final Form Must be _ . ~ Turned into City Manager's ~ ' January 29,1997 February 12, 1997 February 29,1997 March 12, 1997 o Presentation D New Business D Other PROJECT: BOULEVARD CENTER AGENT: CHARLES PUTMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC OWNER: HOWARD S. SCHARLlN, TRUSTEE LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BETWEEN SOUTH LEISUREVILLE BOULEVARD AND NORTHWEST 8TH STREET DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of a 2.5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, rezone from R-1-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and amend Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Development Board at their November meeting, with a vote of 6-0, recommended to deny this request. Applicant has requested that this item be removed from the table. Please refer to attached Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 97-070 for an update of the occurrences since last meeting affecting this application and for revised conditions of approval. __-~~ - g- i1'--I[~<2 ~j Department Hea's Signature--l City Manager's Signature PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 97- 070 Agenda Memorandum for March 4, 1997 City Commission Meeting TO: Dale Sugerman City Manager '-;0 I / Tambri J. Heyden, "t-rA>.:.- Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DA TE: February 27, 1997 SUBJECT: Boulevard Center - LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT The above-referenced item should appear on the March 4, 1997 City Commission Agenda under Public Hearing as it was first postponed by the City Commission at the December 17, 1996 meeting and postponed again on January 21,1997 and February 18,1997. The postponements were requested by the applicant to supply the agent and applicant additional time to consider staff's recommendation and to collect feedback from adjacent property owners. The applicant has requested that this item be removed from the table. DESCRIPTION: The original application submitted by Charles Putman and Associates, Inc. agent for the Morton Group, represents a request for approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of a 2.5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, rezone from R-1-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and to amend Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use on this portion of Area 7.a. The property is located on the south side of Boynton Beach Boulevard, between South Leisureville Boulevard and Northwest 8th Street. As described in the staff report (Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum 96-627), staff's recommendation included both a recommendation to deny the subject request, and a preferable alternative proposal for the property which would limit the northern portion of the property (approximately 220 feet) to the C-1, Office/Professional zoning district if developed in combination with the two small parcels between the funeral home and the subject property. Additional conditions of, or features to, staff's alternative include the requirement that the applicant submit a traffic analysis for this alternative for transmittal to the State in conjunction with the review of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the limitation on uses allowed at this project to office, professional, or institutional (Public Usage) uses (see Attachment "A"- draft list of uses to be excluded from consideration by , the limitation on hours of operation and specific site requirements to address dumpster location and the construction of a buffer wall where the subject parcel abuts adjacent residential zoning districts. The agent has informed staff that they are willing to accept staff's alternative recommendation for the C-1, Office/Professional zoning district on the front portion of the property, and are agreeable to limitations on the specific uses allowed at this site. However, the applicant has not yet agreed to all conditions proposed by staff, and is still reviewing the following differences: 1) The applicant opposes utilizing the adjacent parcels to produce a unified development plan (staff has revised this condition #1 to provide for an alternative in the event there remains separate ownership); and 2) The applicant's draft list of proposed uses includes uses excluded by staff's restriction to office, professional, or institutional (public) uses such as item "c" (Funeral homes), item "i" (Pharmacies, medical, and surgical supplies), item "m" (Nursery School, etc.) and those "Instruction or tutoring" items listed under items "n", "0" and "p" (see Exhibit "A" for uses proposed by applicant to be excluded from the site). As for the remaining conditions, the applicant agrees to the placement of a buffer wall where the property abuts residential zoning districts, restrictions on the placement of dumpsters, provision of a revised traffic study and limits on hours of operation. Page 2 Boulevard Center File Nos. LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 In summary, a) the applicant has agreed to partially comply with condition #1 , as they are agreeable with the recommendation for the C-1, Office/Professional zoning district, but are not willing to include the adjacent parcels in their development plans (as previously mentioned, staff comment #1 has been revised since the Planning and Development Board meeting to include an option to staffs recommendation of unified development under single ownership); b) the applicant has not yet committed to complying with revised condition #2 (staff has revised this condition since the Planning and Development Board meeting); and c) the applicant has not yet agreed to condition #3 (this has been revised by staff since the Planning and Development Board meeting to address the applicant's recent concurrence with a C-1, instead of a C-2, zoning, limited to the front portion of the property and the applicant's concern with unified development controls of adjacent parcels his doesn't own. As mentioned above, regarding comment 1, staff has included an alternative to single ownership. Also, condition #3 includes a course of action to be taken by staff to implement this alternative through the revision of Comprehensive Plan text if the applicant is denied his request or withdraws his application); and d) the applicant has committed to partially complying with revised condition #4, as several, but not all uses proposed by the applicant for elimination from consideration for the site match those to be prohibited by staff (applicant has not yet submitted a final list of uses. Also, condition #4 has been revised by staff since the Planning and Development Board meeting to make an exception to the hours of operation and to break out the issues of dumpster location and buffering into two separate comments - condition 5 and 6 both of which the applicant agrees). T JH:bme Attachments xc: Central File d:\projects\blvdcenter,wpd EXHIBIT "A" USES TO BE EXCLUDED FROM CONSIDERATION BY APPLICANT (those uses crossed out) PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM 96-627 TO: Chairman and Members, Planning and Zoning Board Tambri J. Heyden, AICP --rf. rJ Director of Planning and Zoning Department ~,"tJ, 7L('-- Michael W. Rumpf, Senior Planner THRU: FROM: DATE: November 5, 1996 RE: BOULEVARD CENTER (LUAR 96-010, CPTA 96-002) REQUEST FOR FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT INTRODUCTION Charles Putman & Associates, agent for the Morton Group, petitioner, is requesting that a 2.5 acre parcel be rezoned from RIAA (PUD) to C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) and that the Future Land Use Plan designation for this parcel be amended from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial. In addition, the applicant has submitted an application for a Text Amendment to Area 7.a. of the Land Use Problems and Opportunities Section of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element, to allow Office Commercial land use on the subject parcel which is located on the south side of Boynton Beach Boulevard, approximately 400 feet west of N.W. 8th Street (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map and Exhibit "C" - Aerial View). The subject 2.5 acre parcel occupies approximately 200 feet of frontage on West Boynton Beach Boulevard and was originally subdivided from a greater parcel (totalling 6.12 acres), also owned by Howard R. Scharlin, Trustee, when the southern 3.62 acres was dedicated in November, 1990 to the City for parks and recreation purposes (pursuant to the Woolbright Place PUD amended master plan). Although the southern one-half acre of the subject property was deeded to the Exchange Club/Dick Webber Center on June 13, 1991, the property was transferred, in 1993, back to Mr. Scharlin in accordance with a reverter clause within the deed. It should be noted that the City processed applications for land use amendment/rezoning and text amendment for this property (excluding the one-half acre then owned by the Exchange Club) in 1990 and in 1991. The request submitted in 1990, for Local Retail Commercial land use and C-2 zoning, is identical to the current request, and the request made in 1991 was for Office Commercial land use and C-l zoning. Both petitions were denied by the City Commission. If rezoned, the 2.5 acre parcel could be developed for any use permitted in the C-2 zoning district; however, the petitioner proposes to commit to excluding from consideration the following uses: automotive service stations, dry cleaning services, and any uses identified in the Land Development Regulations which handle or store hazardous materials or generate hazardous waste. These and all other uses allowed in the C-2, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, are listed in Exhibit liB". SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Abutting, or near the subject parcel are the following uses: DIRECTION North Farther north East Southeast South West ZONING nla R-3 C-2 R-I-A R-I-AA R-I-AA (PUD) USE Boynton Beach Boulevard Casa Blanca Apartments single- family home single family homes/vacant property vacant (city-owned) single family homes (Palm Beach Leisureville) I Boulevard Center 12/5/96 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Map & Text The property in question is currently shown on the Future Land Use Element as "Moderate Density Residential", so an amendment of the Future Land Use Element to "Office Commercial", as requested by the applicant, would be necessary. In addition, Area 7.a. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element contains a recommendation that the subject property not be converted to commercial land use. The recommendation for Area 7.a, with that portion proposed to be amended italicized and in brackets, reads as follows: 7.a. Residential Parcels in Vicinity of Old Boynton Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard. Between Congress A venue and Interstate 95 Due to the increased traffic which will be drawn to the Boynton Beach Mall, there will be pressure to rezone the parcels in this area from residential to commercial use. Other than minor adjustments to the existing zoning district boundaries, commercial zoning should not be allowed to extend westward along Old Boynton Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard. Extending commercial zoning along these thoroughfares would cause serious traffic congestion and degrade the residential environment in the adjacent neighborhoods. In particular, commercial zoning should not be permitted on the residential lots and small parcels which lie along Old Boynton Road to the northwest of the Florida Power and Light substation, and should not be permitted on the 5.87 acre outparcellying along the east side of Palm Beach Leisureville. One addition to the commercial zoning district is desirable, however: It is recommended that land use on the southern 300 feet of the R-2 zoned property owned by Florida Power and Light Company, at the northeast corner of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Old Boynton Road be changed to Local Retail Commercial, and the zoning changed to C-2 Neighborhood Commercial. The development of this parcel should be contingent upon its being combined with the vacated right- of-way for Old Boynton Road, and the small triangular-shaped parcel at this intersection, and the rezoning of the combined parcels to a planned commercial development. The northern 330 feet of the Florida Power and Light Company property should be changed from Medium Density Residential land use and R-2 zoning to Low Density Residential land use and RIA zoning. This land use/zoning change would prevent duplex dwellings from being placed immediately next to a single-family neighborhood. [The vacant out parcel which lies along the east side of Palm Beach Leisureville should be limited to either single-family residential use, with a maximum density comparable to the adjacent portion of Leisureville, or to a low-intensity institutional use.} As this last sentence in the recommendation for Area 7.a is contrary to the subject request, the petitioner has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. Only the title for Area 7.a, and the revised text is shown below, which read as follows: 7.a. Residential Parcels in Vicinity of Old Boynton Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard. Between Congress Avenue and Interstate 95 [The vacant out parcel which lies along the east side of Palm Beach Leisureville has direct access with Boynton Beach Boulevard via an existing median opening. The frontage parcel of 2.5 acres should be limited to Office/Retail use consistent with the land use to the east. The balance of the property south of the frontage parcel should be a low intensity civic or institutional use, or a neighborhood park.] Issues/Discussion Section 9.c.7 of Appendix A, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, requires the evaluation of plan amendment/rezoning requests against criteria related to the impacts which would result from the approval of such requests. These criteria and an evaluation of the impacts which would result from the proposed development are as follows: a. Whether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. J Boulevard Center 12/5/96 Page 3 The proposed land use amendment/rezoning would not be consistent with Area 7.a. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element, which was adopted into the Plan by Policy 1.16.4. However, the applicant has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Area 7.a. to amend the existing language to accommodate the proposed change in land use and zoning, and is described above. The "Discussion of Supply and Demand for Commercial Land" in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Document indicates that there may be up to 198 acres of excess commercial land at build-out, or a 30 acre surplus when certain adjustments are considered. Thus, it was concluded that the supply of commercial land in the Boynton Beach market area will nearly match the demand. In addition, this section of the Plan also states the following: "The Future Land Use Plan which is proposed for the City and areas to be annexed by the City will accommodate all of anticipated demand for commercial land through build-out. Therefore, the City should not change the land use to commercial categories, beyond that which is shown on the proposed Future Land Use Plan, except for minor boundary adjustments, small infill parcels, or commercial uses of a highly specialized nature, which have speciallocational or site requirements, and therefore cannot be easily accommodated on already designated commercial area". (page 40) Also on page 40 of the Future Land Use Support Document is the following recommendation regarding the location of commercial uses: "The City should continue its policy of encouraging commercial uses to be located at intersections, and discouraging strip commercial. " Policy 1.19.6 of the Comprehensive Plan states: "Subsequent to Plan adoption, do not allow commercial acreage which is greater than the demand which has been projected, unless it can be demonstrated that a particular property is unsuitable for other uses, or a geographic need exists which cannot be fulfilled by existing commercially-zoned property, or no other suitable property for a commercial use exists for which a need can be demonstrated, and the commercial use would comply with all other applicable Comprehensive Plan policies" . Policy 1.17.1 of the Comprehensive Plan states: "Discourage additional commercial and industrial uses beyond those which are currently shown on the Future Land Use Map, except where access is greatest and impacts on residential land uses are least" . Although the Future Land Use Plan for the City is projected to accommodate all of the anticipated demand for commercial land through build-out, Policy 1.19.6 of the Comprehensive Plan allows additional commercial acreage which is greater than the demand projected, if it can be demonstrated that a particular property is unsuitable for other uses. Since the subject 2.5 acre parcel represents less than half the acreage originally earmarked in Area 7.a for residential use (after 3.6 acres was dedicated to the City), it is arguable that the entire subject parcel is no longer suitable for the development of single-family homes as originally recommended, particularly due to its proximity to Boynton Beach Boulevard. Although the subject parcel meets the "where access is greatest" criteria of Policy 1.17.1, it does not, however, meet the criteria of Policy 1.17.1 which states where "impacts on residential land uses are least" , nor is it consistent with the recommendation that commercial land be limited to intersections and that strip development be discouraged. There will be further discussion concerning consistency with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies in subsequent sections of this memorandum, and a recommendation for the most optimal use of this property given current plan recommendations, the proximity to single-family neighborhoods, and the commercial land use pattern within this vicinity. 3 Boulevard Center 12/5/96 Page 4 b. Whether the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare. Although the proposed rezoning would not be consistent with the recommendation for Area 7 .a., one factor, the reduction in size of this parcel since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, has changed, which affects the applicability of the original recommendation. The reduction in the size of this parcel (which occurred when a portion of Area 7.a was dedicated to the City) presents the necessity to reconsider the applicability of the original recommendation for residential land use, particularly since the remaining 2.5 acres are adjacent to Boynton Beach Boulevard. However, the primary criteria in evaluating the optimal land use of this parcel should include impact upon the adjacent residential properties, proximity to and access from Boynton Beach Boulevard, and the existence of C-2 zoning up to the eastern side of the subject property. With respect to the existing land use pattern, the commercial zoning located along the south side of Boynton Beach Boulevard, extends one block in depth, or approximately 215 feet. As the subject parcel, at the center of the property, extends over 540 feet southward from Boynton Beach Boulevard, and as the adjacent uses are all residential, development of the entire subject parcel for commercial use would not be consistent with the established land use pattern. Within the Conclusion/Recommendation section below, staff describes an alternative proposal for this parcel, which is better tailored to the size and configuration of this parcel, better utilizes adjacent parcels, and would be more compatible with adjacent land uses than the subject proposal. c. Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable. A condition or related characteristic involving this site that has changed is the reduction of the developable portion of the original "outparcel" (as it is referred to in the recommendation for Area 7.a) to 2.5 acres. This remaining property is the northern portion of the original "outparcel", adjacent to Boynton Beach Boulevard. The small parcel size directly affects the developability of this parcel as discussed under item "f" below. d. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities. Although there are existing municipal water and sewer mains along Boynton Beach Boulevard in the vicinity of the subject parcel, construction drawings for connecting to the existing system would not be required until the time of site plan approval. Concerning roadways, the traffic study submitted was written to indicate conformance with local levels of service standards, but not to prove conformance with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance (TPS). Palm Beach County has reviewed this study and verified that the project would be consistent with the City's Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan; however, the study's methodology would not meet the requirements of the County's TPS. A traffic study which meets all traffic requirements of the County, which is necessary for concurrency certification, is a requirement of land use amendments and rezomngs. e. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, or would affect the property values of adjacent and nearby properties. Glare and light from parking lot illumination, noise from trucks, noise from loading and unloading activities, noise due to unloading of dumpsters and removal of compactors, noise from cars and patrons in parking areas, noise during late or early hours of operation, odors from dumpsters (which can be detected up to 200 feet away), trash and litter accumulation and unpleasant aesthetics in the rear of commercial buildings are those impacts that are typically associated with commercial uses. Given that the site is in close proximity to single-family homes on both the east and west sides, these impacts would likely be felt to some degree by adjacent property owners if this entire site was rezoned and developed as proposed. I.( Boulevard Center 12/5/96 Page 5 f. Whether the property is physically and economically developable under the existing zoning. Under the existing land use and zoning, the property could be developed for a maximum of 18 single- family residences. However, dedication of road right-of-way, platting of lots, and provision of an adequate buffer along Boynton Beach Boulevard would likely reduce this yield by as much as fifty percent. The applicant has submitted documentation which indicates that the propelty is economically undevelopable under the existing zoning, owing to the small parcel size, the minimum lot sizes required by the existing zoning district, the proximity to Boynton Beach Boulevard, the economic feasibility of developing a residential project of so few units and the difficulty of financing such a development. Staff recognizes these negative characteristics of the site; however, staff also recognizes the existence of vacant property to the east which could be assembled with the subject site to increase land area and the potential develop ability for a residential infill project, as well as the potential negative impact on the developability of adjacent vacant property if the entire subject site is developed for a commercial use. g. Whether the proposed rezoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole. Due to the proximity of this site to single-family homes, and the intensity of the commercial uses allowed under the C-2 zoning district, the proposed rezoning is not of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole. Within the section below titled Conclusion/Recommendation, staff presents an alternative to the proposed request which is a compromise between the existing recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan and the subject request. Staff feels that this alternative is reasonably related to the needs of the area, while at the same time is consistent with established land use patterns within the area and minimizes impacts on the adjacent neighborhoods. h. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City for the proposed use, in districts where such use is already allowed. As outlined in the discussion of supply and demand for commercial land in the Future Land Use Element Support Documents of the Comprehensive Plan, "the Future Land Use Plan which is proposed for the City and areas to be annexed by the City will accommodate all of the anticipated demand for commercial land through build-out". This paragraph of the Plan further states that "the City should not change the land use to commercial categories, beyond that which is shown on the proposed Future Land Use Plan, except for minor boundary adjustments, small infill parcels, or commercial uses of a highly specialized nature, which have speciallocational or site requirements, and therefore cannot be easily accommodated on already designated commercial areas". This discussion is formalized in Policy 1.19.6 of the Comprehensive Plan (see discussion under item "a" concerning Policy 1.19.6). It is arguable that there are adequate sites zoned C-1 in the City, (which is the recommended zoning proposed by staff and explained within the recommendations section below), that are either vacant or developed, but have vacant floor area that could be occupied by most of the uses allowed under C-1 that would potentially locate on the subject parcel. However, the Comprehensive Plan does make an exception within Policy 1.19.6 for small infill parcels. The alternative proposed by staff includes a reduction in the area of the subject parcel to be designated for commercial use, which size would qualify for the size exception indicated in Policy 1.19.6. Conclusions/Recommendations Staff recommends that the requests submitted by Charles Putman & Associates be denied based, in part, on the analysis stated herein which concludes that the requests would be inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and support data text, inconsistent with the established land use pattern within the area, and would not minimize land use conflicts and impacts on residential areas. In addition to this recommendation, staff has formulated an alternative proposal for this parcel which if acceptable by the City Commission, should ultimately be incorporated into the recommendation for Area 7.a, and reflected on the Future Land Use Map consistent with the conditions of approval .r Boulevard Center 12/5/96 Page 6 indicated in Exhibit "D". Staff's recommendation was formulated based on the site's proximity to Boynton Beach Boulevard, the established commercial land use pattern along Boynton Beach Boulevard to the east of the subject site, the limitation to further westward expansion of commercial development beyond this parcel, the existence of vacant, residentially-zoned property adjacent to this site, and based on maintaining the developability of surrounding vacant parcels. Staff has placed a high priority on minimizing impacts upon the adjacent neighborhoods and maintaining developability of the remaining vacant, residentially-zoned and commercially-zoned property adjacent to the east of the subject site. As residential development of that portion of this site in close proximity to Boynton Beach Boulevard may not be practical and economically feasible, staff recommends that commercial use be allowed, but only on the northern portion of the site, limited to a depth generally equal to the commercial pattern established to the east. Existing commercial zoning and uses extend southward from Boynton Beach Boulevard one (1) block in depth, or approximately 220 feet. Staff has estimated that this northern portion of the site is just over one (1) acre. Commercial use of this portion of the site would be contingent upon assemblage with those vacant, commercially-zoned parcels located between this site and the funeral home to the east. The combined acreage of the two areas is approximately 1.5 acres. It should be noted that this adjacent parcel is occupied by a single-family home listed on the City's new Historic Site Survey. Although this unit is not on the list of units proposed for preservation, and although there is currently no mechanism (historic preservation ordinance) for preserving historic structures, if this unit is ultimately found worthy of preservation by the City, the structure should be adaptively reused and incorporated into the ultimate project. Furthermore, rather than C-2 zoning as proposed, this property would be rezoned to C-I, Office/Professional, along with the adjacent property with which it is to be assembled. The C-I zoning would create a transition between the C-2 zoning and the residential properties to the west and south/southeast. This transition is created by virtue of the C-I uses which generally generate minimal truck traffic, paper-type garbage and exhibit 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. hours of operation. Although there is currently a curb-cut in the median of Boynton Beach Boulevard directly in front of the subject parcel, this may not be an ideal location for access given the speed of traffic and limited site distance at this location (The Florida Department of Transportation annually reviews selected curb-cuts for consistency with current DOT operational policy and may consider removal of this median cut). By combining these parcels, it is possible that access could be achieved through those existing points of access used by the funeral home which are closer to the intersection with N. W. 8th Street (this of course would require proper site design, and coordination and access arrangements with the funeral home). Additional development conditions intended to minimize impacts on residential areas are also recommended by staff, which involve the limitations on uses, hours of business operation, and buffering, and are indicated in Exhibit "D" - Conditions of ApprovaL The remaining southern portion of the site would appropriately be combined with the vacant property to the east and developed as it is currently zoned, R-IA, Single Family Residential. As an alternative to residential use of the southern portion of this site, the City could consider acquiring it and combining it with that City-owned property to the south to facilitate the development of a park equivalent to a neighborhood park rather than a mini-park. This recommendation is based on the current low level of service for neighborhood parks within the Lake Boynton Estates Subdivision, which will not likely improve due to the inability to expand the existing Hibiscus Park, and the lack of available land for new park development within this neighborhood. This alternative plan for the subject parcel satisfies all requirements of Comprehensive Plan policies and text, is consistent with the established land use pattern within the area including that created by the commercial uses, would minimize the impacts on residential land uses, and would best maintain the developability of vacant properties adjacent to the subject site. If this alternative is desirable to the City, staff would propose to process the corresponding amendments to the Comprehensive Plan concurrent with those amendments generated by the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). , EXHIBIT "A" LOCATION MAP 7 JA BqU\-F~~~~;.c ~EN lr~ R "",,"m!1lIl~I_ ,A : i.... 'U.J. c.' ~ ~-' I-- -- \TIll m; mmmm :' 'J.J . ~ IWllIll'" \ \_ ;~~nonTn_= ~ 1~: l rm C .N~ , : ~.'~ '" ~t:: -:.. ::- ...j c c. ::: ,,--i , '.-< IJ- - ;:=:j..,.. I : ! ',.. ix<-- ,l:; ~ _ ..:..J -. .c:: ~ 'IV~. ' ,.::. - I iii : ~ = h" _ . H 1 II =r r4l1~ ~=- _J ~ . : ' r ~ ~ ]I: \1 ~ --1'. - - - 0"' M SO'M~~'. ',--' c: I /~ "- I, .. - s:=! · -. R3 II 11 T i :...IJ I :!T~'lic' he':.' .= . . -_: p ,-, nor> 'C ^" J j ....... QiE::.. :... Mil'=' . c--1 U 1T 1 I '-KW -f, .~ i _~~ : .' . TIf)1l ~ - \ .==;:: --::-., I 11 If-/! fl 1 r~ -ij - i" r= I' ,....f~ J "I U 1111 ~~ . .. ~- '-I-- --\ \,l/II ~ t= I .-1 ~ ,'~!. ~ ,,",~ ~& '--" ~ ~EF' URt ..c ~ un l ,pce '.~ ~.Y";;;IJ" . '"~.,. \ . \I . .. .-... 1"~"~' \ !:"fl (, ,roi :=J I 6'~ A~ "" ,,\ I';-?-: r. Ti 11" . JiM p ~ ~,XI--1t ....J~X'"....T' \ 1 : ;fl. ~I' Jl,'- \ -! II , ' II' I ~ , ~ ~~ ~~ \I"'\'/! ~.~ f i1 '~ :. .' \II~.:: ~n~-1' ~ i'\ .I~ I'IR~~, -- ". I pl't. Li..:':.\Lf:j~r~ ~ -' '~m ,I '} ~ 1 :.IL ;w~ ~I~-I\~ : ,VIi u~'-' i:~ ~ \@\ ' ~~rnn-II,;, rut!.JliLl iiJl!llIll"l ~~illl' l~" I 'I ~ . . II II i r " u "'" p" ;,.,., ...\ H 1 LT Il1Illl!lJID 1 ,1\ I ,lR! \ II . I' II' _ 11 OJ.?' :[' 1\\ II; ., \'::UI . "' ~ IT::!] I 11'11 I'll ITtl . :j tT ~~ IT _""," \ 11 Tn :.J.' l\U I. , ~ .. \ T [l . ___/ )1' ': i .~. ~'_-,I'!\. '" ~ T L T >" IE C ( .., ,,"":j ,.;. \ ,,......ne illIllf 1T .\ 1 r II ; -,'(:' 1 ~w: r';}~l'" -\ tIn <,f:L IT -r - ~ ,\ I ~. ,., 'i.. ....;.., c . 1) \' ~I TT 1 rrTIIl1 1_ _ . ,I .,1 " "...... \' ': .. J ---' -. rTl," ~ '\ I 11 Ll.Il-.i:JJ.', ' r. ,11'1""" ' \' I' \ ft. f;~lQ,.,%~ ~~1J ~ !: '''' -.' ,,'I ~ I l.~~~ ">, ~. i '>~< "1'W~~'-B~''::~" \~ 'mIIIllIIUl;' fjf{/Jr~~"~ .': . <~~~r~~'. ~'-A~~':.. - \ ..~;;~\~.~ ),.~ ~ ,_ ~ ~,""~">\~ ~~. ,,' mil J 11T ~1 PU ~lll i -, · ~ ~, . y ~ ":, -=lh ,~""~. ,..~; .11 I" J t;J' \ ~~.!I C~. \\ I'~T'"T,IIIIIII . . . : ' , ~.' . " . ,. ,r' ..>'.' :r 11 : :. ,,_ . u: ,~\J'eI ~ 111 ;' 1- -.to :::.~-" /fK'1 I ~ "I III : _ ".... . """ ..-.v . · I ~.., .. ~ ,J T . "'" 0. . ~ '. c.--- ...W U"'~' ,. \. ! R'31 ..... .... ....~ ~ -, C:3 . ",I:'~' r,~ I'V /1 R 7~ w d~'" -A7VENV~"- WtJOJ..8,1lIGNT il.Ofl8;l......-<'. . Co. . · '/ . , . ' TO' ~ 1 ~J>>' ,'.: , . .' , ~ rll __. . :j, rJI_ i ." ' Vi<':;1 T .....~ 071-' - -.:.. "",'1711 '; l - ,'" ....1 ,-r'- /~ ~. ... , ~ " " . " .< IN. .,. .... 1 . ~....~ , 7 I ~ ~ ..-'2.~ . ~ '^ ~ ~i:lll' 3: . ;ZlY , .h I fI f : . . ~ ~ I .: 'I. III/l .r.....J ~..= \t '0 118 MILESV' ~ '-i). ~ nu O--Y R t!;. ',~' iB ,~'n \ \ \ \ \. '. ~~<. '5/ ~J/~t~~:: = ''i-'O 400 '800 FEET -- -- - =, ~ ,- -)/ <i 11- j t' ,..., = ~ ~'l' -: ~",.. w --I , rf' 'r... _~~!.:.q.. I:::,>=; ~ (.. ?' '/ 1l..~ 111 ~ -'1 LOGATION MA'.) EXHIBIT "B" C-2 ZONING DISTRICT (USES ALLOWED) , B. C-2 DIGBBORBOOD COMMBRCIAL DISTRICT. These district ~pl.tiOD. will provide a limited number of small ctl lrcial facilities of a retail convenience nature, ~~ed to service individual residential neighborhoods. Geaerally, the desired locations for these facilities are near and about the geocenter or other planned nucleus of the neighborhood, conforming to the general development plan. 1. Uses permitted. Within any C-2 neighborhood commercial zoning district, no building, structure, land or water, or any part thereat, shall be erected altered, or used, in whole or in part, except for one (1) or more of the following specified uses. Those Adopt.d April t. 1"'. Ord1a.ae. 0"-02 ...1..d 2-27 Ie f. g. h. i. j . k. 1. m. n. o. ~p ~. . . ."~ ., : q. s. 56 uses, however, which are indicated in lA. below shall require conditional use approval, and those uses which are listed under lB. below shall require an environmental review permit, prior to the establishment of these uses: All stores and shops in the C-2 district shall be limited to retail sales. a. Any use permitted in C-l district. b. Any use which is a conditional use in the C-l zoning district.* The following uses, provided that the gross floor area of such use does not exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet: c. Automobile parts and marine hardware stores, excluding any installation on premises, and excluding machine shop service. Camera and audio-visual equipment and supply stores. Furniture stores and home furnishings; antique stores, excluding auction bouses, shall be a permitted use i~ limited to selling only objects of value such as quality antiques, art objects, jewelry and the like, but not used merchandise generally. Flower shops and sale of house plants. Bicycle sbops. Luggage stores. Music stores. Art and ceramic stores. Jewelry and cosmetic stores. Locksmi th shops. Sporting goods, excluding sale of ammunition or firearms; game, and toy stores; bait and tackle shops. d. e. r. Paint, wallpaper, tile, carpet, draperies, blinds and shades, and interior decorator shops. Office supplies, equipment, and furniture. Art, craft, trophy, bobby, and costume shops, and sewing supplies; art galleries and artists' studios. Book stores, religious goods, card shops, tobacco sbops, and news stores. Pet shops, excluding kennels or boarding of animals or keeping animals in outdoor kennels. Repair or service shops, excluding rebuilding or refinishing for retail goods that are typically sold in the stores which are permitted uses in the C-2 district. All outdoor display or storage Adopt.d Ap~ll 4. 11". O~dll1.lIc. 0"'02 a.v1..d , , 2-28 (I 56 in conjunction with such uses shall be prohibited, however. t. Televisions; radio, video, and stereo equipment and supplies. u. Household appliances and parts for same. v. Curio, souvenir, and gift shops, excluding sale of used merchandise. w. Beer and wine sales, limited to consumption off premises. x. The following personal and household services: Barber shops, beauty salons., manicurists, tanning salons, pet grooming, off-premises carpet and upholstery cleaning, maid service, tailors and dressmakers. y. Laundromats and retail laundering services, provided that the floor area for such uses is entirely enclosed. z. Retail photographic studios and photofinishing service. aa. Pabrication and installation of furniture slipcovers. bb. Taxicab offices and parking, excluding service or repairs on the premises. cc. Automotive service stations, without major repairs (see definitions: "major repairs"), and including car washes as an accessory use, provided that at least one (1) frontage lies along a four-lane collector or arterial road, and the site is developed in accordance with Section 11.L. In the C-2 district, repair and service of vehicles, other than refueling, shall be limited to automobiles, motorcycles, and pick-up trucks with a rated capacity of not more than one (1) ton. All repair and service of vehicles shall be done within an enclosed building.. dd. Print shops. ee. Drycleaning service, limited to handling goods that are brought to the premises by retail cu8tomers . . ff. Private clubs; lodges, and fraternal organizations.. 91. Drive-up, drive-through, or drive-in service for 'A any of the retail uses or personal services '~ listed under 1.c. through 1.ff. above.. Drive-up .~ and drive-through facilities for financial institutions shall be a permitted use, however. hh. Art or recreational instruction. The following uses, provided that the gross floor area of such use does not exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet: ii. Grocery, food, ice cream, confectionery, and health food stores; delicatessens, butcher shops Adopted April t. 1995. Ordlaeace 095-02 .e.leed "\ 2-29 Il 56 and seafood stores, vegetable and fruit stores, convenience food stores, and bakeries; catering service. General hardware stores. Restaurants, including serving of alcoholic beverages only in connection with the serving of meals. Drive-through, drive-up, or drive-in restaurants. * Sundries, notions, and variety stores. Drug stores. Clothing, clothing accessory, and shoe stores. Lawn and garden supply stores. Drive-up, drive-through or drive-in service for any of the retail uses or personal services listed under 1.ii. through 1.pp. above.* Drive-up and drive-through facilities for financial institutions shall be a permitted use, however. A single-family residence, incidental to a permitted, commercial use, located on the same lot as the commercial use. Such residence shall have a minimum living area of seven hundred fifty (750) square feet and shall be limited to occupancy by tpe property owner or business owner/operator. ~l uses listed under 1.c. through 1.qq. above shall specify the gross floor area on the application for an occupational license. Bach retail store and adjacent stores or bays under the same ownership or control that are of a similar or related use shall be considered to be a single store for the purpose of computing floor area. jj . kk. 11. mm. nn. 00. pp. qq. rr. lA. Conditional uses allowed: Those uses specified above which are followed by an asterisk (*) shall be deemed to be conditional uses, which may be considered and granted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 11.2. 18..U... requiring an environmental review permit: Within ::aay C-2 neighborhood commercial zoning district, no :~-building, structure, land or water, or any part thereof, shall be erected, altered, or used, in whole or in part, for any of the following specified uses, unless an environmental review permit is secured in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Section 11.3: a. Automotive service stations, subject to the provision of 1.cc. above. b. Print shops. c. Drycleaning on premises, limited to handling Adopted Aprll 4. 1"'. OrdlD8Dce 0"'02 levi.ed 2-30 13 56 goods that are brought to the premises by retail customers. . d. Any use listed under 6.B.1 or 6.B.1A, which uses, handles, stores, or displays hazardous materials, or which generates hazardous waste as defined by 40 Code of Pederal Regulations, Part 261. 2. Prohibited uses. Within any C-2 neighborhood commercial zoning district, no building, structure, land or water, or any part thereGt, shall be erected, altered, or used, in whole or in part, for any of the following uses: a. Any use not specifically allowed in accordance with the list of uses under 1., 1A., and lB., above. Any use wbich is either specifically allowed or prohibited in another zoning district, which is not specifically allowed in accordance with the list of uses under 1., LA., and lB., above. OUtdoor storage or disPlar of any type. Sale of firearms or ~ tion. Sale of tireworks. Temporary employment centers, operated on a walk-in basis.- . Any wholesal~ establishments, storage as a principal use, or off-premises storage, or distribution. Sale of alcoholic beverages, other than beer or wine. Serving of alcoholic beverages, except for consumption on premises within a duly licensed restaurant and in conjunction with the serving of regular meals. Lumber yards or building materials stores. Sales bazaars, farmer's markets, flea or thieves' markets, swap shops and trading posts. b. c. d. e. t. g. h. i. j. k. Adopt.d Aprl1 t. 1"5. Ordl.a.ee O'S-O~ ..,,1..e1 \ 2-31 IV EXIDBIT "e" AERIAL VIEW OF PROPERTY 15 tX,",'B'" "C" EXHIBIT "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 17 EXHIBIT 11011 Conditions of Approval Project name: Boulevard Center File number: LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 Reference: If the alternative use of the subiect and adiacent properties as proposed by staff is acceoted by the Citv Commission the following reauirements including procedures apply (see Planning and Zoning Deoartment Memorandum No. 96-627 I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I PUBLIC WORKS - .~ UTILITIES - . N()NF FIRE - . POLICE - . NIIN!- DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I . N()NF PARKS AND RECREATION r . N()NF FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST . N()NF PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. It is recommended that the northern 220 feet of the subject property be reclassified Office Commercial and rezoned C-1, Office/Professional and developed accordingly with a unified development plan developed incorporating the two parcels between the subject property and the funeral home, or if under separate ownership, incorporating the following design aspects: shared service areas (e.g. loading and refuse), cross-access, and a limit of a total of two entrances from Boynton Beach Boulevard to serve the referenced parcels. 2. A revised traffic study/statement shall be submitted by the applicant to address the application modifications for C-1 zoning on the northern 220 feet of the subject property, prior to transmittal of any comprehensive plan text or Future Land Use Map amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. 3. If this application is withdrawn or denied, staff will process a text amendment incorporating condition #1 and the recommendation to plan for the possible city acquisition of the southern portion of the subject property for use as a city park in connection with the city-owned property to the south. If this application is approved with condition #1, the submitted text amendment shall be revised to include condition #1 and the recommendation to plan for the possible city acquisition of the southern portion of the subject property for use as a city park in connection with the city-owned property to the south. 4. Property zoned C-1 shall be limited to office, professional or institutional uses only; this includes the prohibition of funeral homes, pharmacies, sale of medical related supplies, instruction or tutoring, nursing homes, nursery schools, day care centers, copying services, restaurants, dental laboratories, barber shops, beauty salons, manicurists, tailors and dressmakers. Hours of operation shall be limited to daytime hours of approximately 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. unless the ultimate use is an emeraencv medical facilitv that would reauire 24 hour service. Page 2 Boulevard Center File Nos. LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT 5. Any dumpsters shall be located to maximize distance from residential properties. The specific dumpster location(s) shall be determined during site plan review. 6. Where the subject C-1 zoned property abuts residential properties, a 10 foot wide buffer shall be provided and will contain a 6 foot high masonry wall, 10 foot high canopy trees every 30 feet on center and a continuous 2 foot high hedge. The buffer wall shall be constructed according to the Land Development Regulations. Along the east property line, the wall shall be located 5 feet east of the property line so ~!=: thl'! Iltilitv ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS 7 .. ~nrt Rn~rrt rtl'!ni~1 ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS 8. To be determined. MR:bme D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\BOULEVAR\CONDAPPR.WPD . e . ~ PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 97-015 Agenda Memorandum for January 21, 1997 City Commission Meeting TO: Dale Sugerman City Manager Tambri J. Heyden, AICP '~ Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DA TE: January 16, 1997 SUBJECT: Boulevard Center - LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 Future Land Use Element Amendment/Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment During telephone conversations today with Bradley Miller, agent for the project, postponement is requested until the February 18, 1997 City Commission meeting. The agent requests this second postponement to allow further time to consider staffs :ecommendation and conditions. A letter verifying the postponement is forthcoming. TJH:bme xc: Central File D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\BOUlEVAR\CCAGEND1,WPD CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM D Preliminary Draft D Revised Draft ~ Final Submittal Requested City Commission Meeting Dates o December 3, 1996 o December 17,1996 o January 7, 1997 D January 21,1997 Date Final Form Must be Turned into City Manager's Office November 25, 1996 January 15, 1997 Requested City Commission Meeting Dates o February 4, 1997 D February 18, 1997 o March 4, 1997 o March 18, 1997 Date Final Form Must be Turned into City Manager's January 29, 1997 December 11, 1996 February 12, 1997 December 30, 1996 February 29,1997 March 12, 1997 NATURE OF AGENDA ITEM D Administration D Consent D Bid ~ Public Hearing D Legal D Unfinished Business D Presentation D New Business D Other DESCRIPTION OF AGENDA ITEM (attach additional sheets and supporting documentation if necessary) PROJECT: BOULEVARD CENTER AGENT: CHARLES PUTMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC OWNER: HOWARD S. SCHARLlN, TRUSTEE LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BETWEEN SOUTH LEISUREVILLE BOULEVARD AND NORTHWEST 8TH STREET DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of a 2.5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, rezone from R-1-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and amend Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use. RECOMMENDA liON The Planning and Development Board at their November meeting, with a vote of 6-0, recommended to deny this request. Applicant has requested that this item be removed from the table. Please refer to attached Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 97-070 for an update of the occurrences since last meeting affecting this application and for revised conditions of approval. r' -.--- ~ /&r7df../'),;t l-.{i~ Department Hea City Manager's Signature PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 97- 070 Agenda Memorandum for March 4, 1997 City Commission Meeting TO: Dale Sugerman City Manager FROM: ,-;0 J I Tambri J. Heyden, I ~r!(~ Planning and Zoning Director DA TE: February 27, 1997 SUBJECT: Boulevard Center - LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT The above-referenced item should appear on the March 4, 1997 City Commission Agenda under Public Hearing as it was first postponed by the City Commission at the December 17, 1996 meeting and postponed again on January 21,1997 and February 18,1997. The postponements were requested by the applicant to supply the agent and applicant additional time to consider staff's recommendation and to collect feedback from adjacent property owners. The applicant has requested that this item be removed from the table. DESCRIPTION: The original application submitted by Charles Putman and Associates, Inc. agent for the Morton Group, represents a request for approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of a 2.5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, rezone from R-1-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and to amend Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use on this portion of Area 7.a. The property is located on the south side of Boynton Beach Boulevard, between South Leisureville Boulevard and Northwest 8th Street. As described in the staff report (Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum 96-627), staff's recommendation included both a recommendation to deny the subject request, and a preferable alternative proposal for the property which would limit the northern portion of the property (approximately 220 feet) to the C-1, Office/Professional zoning district if developed in combination with the two small parcels between the funeral home and the subject property. Additional conditions of, or features to, staff's alternative include the requirement that the applicant submit a traffic analysis for this alternative for transmittal to the State in conjunction with the review of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the limitation on uses allowed at this project to office, professional, or institutional (Public Usage) uses (see Attachment "A"- draft list of uses to be excluded from consideration by , the limitation on hours of operation and specific site requirements to address dumpster location and the construction of a buffer wall where the subject parcel abuts adjacent residential zoning districts. The agent has informed staff that they are willing to accept staff's alternative recommendation for the C-1, Office/Professional zoning district on the front portion of the property, and are ag reeable to limitations on the specific uses allowed at this site. However, the applicant has not yet agreed to all conditions proposed by staff, and is still reviewing the following differences: 1) The applicant opposes utilizing the adjacent parcels to produce a unified development plan (staff has revised this condition #1 to provide for an alternative in the event there remains separate ownership); and 2) The applicant's draft list of proposed uses includes uses excluded by staff's restriction to office, professional, or institutional (public) uses such as item "c" (Funeral homes), item "i" (Pharmacies, medical, and surgical supplies), item "m" (Nursery School, etc.) and those IIlnstruction or tutoring" items listed under items "n", 110" and "p" (see Exhibit "A" for uses proposed by applicant to be excluded from the site). As for the remaining conditions, the applicant agrees to the placement' of a buffer wall where the property abuts residential zoning districts, restrictions on the placement of dumpsters, provision of a revised traffic study and limits on hours of operation. Page 2 Boulevard Center File Nos. LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 In summary, a) the applicant has agreed to partially comply with condition #1, as they are agreeable with the recommendation for the C-1, Office/Professional zoning district, but are not willing to include the adjacent parcels in their development plans (as previously mentioned, staff comment #1 has been revised since the Planning and Development Board meeting to include an option to staffs recommendation of unified development under single ownership); b) the applicant has not yet committed to complying with revised condition #2 (staff has revised this condition since the Planning and Development Board meeting); and c) the applicant has not yet agreed to condition #3 (this has been revised by staff since the Planning and Development Board meeting to address the applicant's recent concurrence with a C-1, instead of a C-2, zoning, limited to the front portion of the property and the applicant's concern with unified development controls of adjacent parcels his doesn't own. As mentioned above, regarding comment 1, staff has included an alternative to single ownership. Also, condition #3 includes a course of action to be taken by staff to implement this alternative through the revision of Comprehensive Plan text if the applicant is denied his request or withdraws his application); and d) the applicant has committed to partially complying with revised condition #4, as several, but not all uses proposed by the applicant for elimination from consideration for the site match those to be prohibited by staff (applicant has not yet submitted a final list of uses. Also, condition #4 has been revised by staff since the Planning and Development Board meeting to make an exception to the hours of operation and to break out the issues of dumpster location and buffering into two separate comments - condition 5 and 6 both of which the applicant agrees). T JH:bme Attachments xc: Central File d:\projects\blvdcenter. wpd EXHIBIT "0" Conditions of Approval Project name: Boulevard Center File number: LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 Reference: If the alternative use of the subiect and adiacent oroperties as prooosed by staff is accepted by the City Commission the following reauirements including orocedures apoly (see Planning and Zoning Deoartment Memorandum No. 96-627 DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT PUBLIC WORKS I . Nnl\lI= , UTILITIES - . NnNJ::: I FIRE - POLICE I . NnNJ::: DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - . Nnfl.lJ::: PARKS AND RECREATION - FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST - . PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. It is recommended that the northern 220 feet of the subject property be reclassified Office Commercial and rezoned C-1, Office/Professional and developed accordingly with a unified development plan developed incorporating the two parcels between the subject property and the funeral home, or if under separate ownership, incorporating the following design aspects: shared service areas (e.g. loading and refuse), cross-access, and a limit of a total of two entrances from Boynton Beach Boulevard to serve the referenced parcels. 2. A revised traffic study/statement shall be submitted by the applicant to address the application modifications for C-1 zoning on the northern 220 feet of the subject property, prior to transmittal of any comprehensive plan text or Future Land Use Map amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. 3. If this application is withdrawn or denied, staff will process a text amendment incorporating condition #1 and the recommendation to plan for the possible city acquisition of the southern portion of the subject property for use as a city park in connection with the city-owned property to the south. If this application is approved with condition #1, the submitted text amendment shall be revised to include condition #1 and the recommendation to plan for the possible city acquisition of the southern portion of the subject property for use as a city park in connection with the city-owned property to the south. 4. Property zoned C-1 shall be limited to office, professional or institutional uses only; this includes the prohibition of funeral homes, pharmacies, sale of medical related supplies, instruction or tutoring, nursing homes, nursery schools, day care centers, copying services, restaurants, dental laboratories, barber shops, beauty salons, manicurists, tailors and dressmakers. Hours of operation shall be limited to daytime hours of approximately 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. unless the ultimate use is an emerqencv medical facilitv that would reauire 24 hour service. Page 2 Boulevard Center File Nos. LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I 5. Any dumpsters shall be located to maximize distance from residential properties. The specific dumpster location(s) shall be determined during site plan review. 6. Where the subject C-1 zoned property abuts residential properties, a 10 foot wide buffer shall be provided and will contain a 6 foot high masonry wall, 10 foot high canopy trees every 30 feet on center and a continuous 2 foot high hedge. The buffer wall shall be constructed according to the Land Development Regulations. Along the east property line, the wall shall be located 5 feet east of the property line so ::!~ nnt .- ". . thA ' utilitv ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS 7. - ::!nn ciAni::!1 ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS 8. To be determined. MR:bme D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\BOULEVAR\CONDAPPR,WPD ~~ CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM o Preliminary Draft D Revised Draft ~ Final Submittal Requested City Commission Date Final Fonn Must be Turned Requested City Commission Date Final Fonn Must be Meeting Dates into City Manager's Office Meeting Dates Turned into City Manager's D December 3, 1996 November 25, 1996 D February 4, 1997 January 29, 1997 D December 17,1996 December II, 1996 D February 18, 1997 February 12, 1997 D January 7, 1997 December 30, 1996 D March 4, 1997 February 29, 1997 o January 21, 1997 January 15, 1997 D March 18, 1997 March 12, 1997 NATURE OF AGENDA ITEM D Administration D Bid D Legal D Consent [] Public Hearing o Unfinished Business D Presentation o New Business D Other DESCRIPTION OF AGENDA ITEM (attach additional sheets and supporting documentation if necessary) PROJECT: BOULEVARD CENTER AGENT: CHARLES PUTMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC OWNER: HOWARD S. SCHARLlN, TRUSTEE LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BETWEEN SOUTH LEISUREVILLE BOULEVARD AND NORTHWEST 8TH STREET DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of a 2.5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercia', rezone from R-1-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and amend Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use. RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Development Board at their November meeting, with a vote of 6-0, recommended to deny this request. Applicant has requested that this item be removed from the table. r - ~/~ City Manager's Signature D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\BOULEVAR\AGENDNW1.WPD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 97- 043 Agenda Memorandum for February 18, 1997 City Commission Meeting TO: Dale Sugerman City Manager Tambri J. Heyden, ;g: /J Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DA TE: February 12, 1997 SUBJECT: Boulevard Center - LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT The above-referenced item should appear on the February 18, 1997 City Commission Agenda under Public Hearing as it was first postponed by the City Commission at the December 17, 1996 meeting and postponed again on February 18,1997. The postponements were requested by the applicant to supply the agent and applicant additional time to consider staff's recommendation and to collect feedback from adjacent property owners. The applicant has requested that this item be removed from the table. DESCRIPTION: The original application submitted by Charles Putman and Associates, Inc. agent for the Morton Group, represents a request for approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of a 2.5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, rezone from R-1-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and to amend Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use on this portion of Area 7.a. The property is located on the south side of Boynton Beach Boulevard, between South Leisureville Boulevard and Northwest 8th Street. As described in the staff report (Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum 96-627), staffs recommendation included both a recommendation to deny the subject request, and a preferable alternative proposal for the property which would limit the northern portion of the property (approximately 220 feet) to the C-1, Office/Professional zoning district if developed in combination with the two small parcels between the funeral home and the subject property. Additional conditions of, or features to, staff's alternative include the requirement that the applicant submit a traffic analysis for this alternative for transmittal to the State in conjunction with the review of the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, the limitation on uses allowed at this project to office, professional, or institutional (Public Usage) uses (see Attachment "A"- draft list of uses to be excluded from consideration by , the limitation on hours of operation to approximately 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and specific site requirements to address dumpster location and the construction of a buffer wall where the subject parcel abuts adjacent residential zoning districts. The agent has informed staff that they are willing to accept staffs alternative recommendation for the C-1, Office/Professional zoning district on the front portion of the property, and are agreeable to limitations on the specific uses allowed at this site. However, the applicant is not agreeable to all conditions proposed by staff, and are still reviewing some conditions. Differences are described as follows: 1) The applicant opposes utilizing the adjacent parcels to produce a unified development plan; and 2) The applicant's draft list of proposed uses may include uses excluded by staff's restriction to office, professional, or institutional (public) uses such as item "c" (Funeral homes), item "i" (Pharmacies, medical, and surgical supplies), item "m" (Nursery School, etc.) and those "Instruction or tutoring" items listed under items "n", "0" and "p" (see Exhibit "A" for uses proposed to be excluded from the site). As for the remaining conditions, the applicant continues to agree to the placement of a buffer wall where the property abuts residential zoning districts, agrees with any restrictions on the placement of dumpsters, and is still reviewing the conditions related to an additional traffic study and limits on hours of operation. In summary, a) the applicant has agreed to partially comply with condition #1, as they are agreeable with the recommendation for the C-1, Office/Professional zoning district, but are not willing to include the adjacent parcels in their development plans (Note: Staff comment #1 has been revised since the Planning and Development Board meeting to include an option to staff's recommendation of unified development under single ownership); b) the applicant has not yet committed to complying with condition #2 (submittal of a revised traffic study); and c) the applicant has committed to partially complying with condition #4, as several, but not all uses proposed by the applicant for elimination from consideration for the site match those to be prohibited by staff (the applicant has not yet agreed to the limit on hours of operation). It should be noted that condition #3 is not a condition or obligation of the applicant, but rather a course of action to be taken by staff to implement this alternative through the revision of Comprehensive Plan text if the applicant is denied his request or withdraws his application. Attachments xc: Central File BCENTER EXHIBIT "0" Conditions of Approval Project name: Boulevard Center File number: LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 Reference: If the alternative use of the subiect and adiacent properties as Droposed by staff is accepted by the City Commission the following reauirements including procedures apply (see Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-627 I DEPARTMENTS /,NCLUDE , REJECT I PUBLIC WORKS ~ .~ UTILITIES l . ..~..- FIRE - POLICE l .~ DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT . PARKS AND RECREATION ~ FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST . PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. It is recommended that the northern 220 feet of the subject property be reclassified Office Commercial and rezoned C-1, Office/Professional and developed accordingly with a unified development plan developed incorporating the two parcels between the subject property and the funeral home, or if under separate ownership, incorporating the following design aspects: shared service areas (e.g. loading and refuse), cross-access, and a limit of a total of two entrances from Boynton Beach Boulevard to serve the referenced parcels. 2. A traffic study shall be submitted by the applicant, prior to transmittal of any comprehensive plan text or Future Land Use Map amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. 3. If the subject request is withdrawn staff will process a text amendment incorporating the condition #1 and the recommendation to plan for acquisition of the southern portion of the subject property, and use for a city park in connection with the city-owned property to the south. 4. Property zoned C-1 shall be limted to office, professional or institutional uses only. Hours of operation shall be limited to daytime hours of approximately 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Any dumpsters shall be located to maximize distance from residential properties. A buffer wall shall be constructed according to the Land Development Regulations and -. wh...r... th... ::Ihllh:: ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS 5 and ..... Board denial ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS 6. To be determined. MR:dim D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\BOULEVAR\CONDAPPR.WPD CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM D Preliminary Draft D Revised Draft ~ . Requested City Commission Meeting Dates D December 3, 1996 D December 17,1996 D January 7, 1997 o January 21,1997 NATURE OF AGENDA ITEM Final Submittal Date Final Form Must be Turned Requested City Commission into City Manager's Oftice Meeting Dates November 25, 1996 D February 4, 1997 December II, 1996 D February 18, 1997 December 30,1996 D March 4, 1997 January IS, 1997 D March 18, 1997 Date Final Form Must be Turned into City Manager's January 29, 1997 February 12, 1997 February 29, 1997 March 12, 1997 D Administration D Consent D Bid [8 Public Hearing D Legal D Unfinished Business D Presentation D New Business D Other DESCRIPTION OF AGENDA ITEM (attach additional sheets and supporting documentation if necessary) PROJECT: BOULEVARD CENTER AGENT: CHARLES PUTMAN AND ASSOCIATES, INC OWNER: HOWARD S. SCHARLlN, TRUSTEE LOCATION: SOUTH SIDE OF BOYNTON BEACH BOULEVARD, BETWEEN SOUTH LEISUREVILLE BOULEVARD AND NORTHWEST 8TH STREET . DESCRIPTION: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of a 2.5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, rezone from R-1-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and amend Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use, Request for postponement until February 18, 1997 City Commission meeting (see attached memorandum). RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Development Board, with a vote of 6-0, recommended to deny this request. / -=/i~~ jl~~de,- Department Head's Signature City Manager's Signature D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\BOULEVAR\AGENDNW1,WPD PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 96-657 Agenda Memorandum for December 17. 1996 City Commission Meeting TO: Dale Sugerman City Manager Tambri J, Heyden, AICP 'Id f.l Planning and Zoning Director FROM: DA TE: December 11, 1996 SUBJECT: Boulevard Center - LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 Future land Use Element Amendment/Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Please place the above-referenced item on the December 17. 1996 City Commission agenda under Public Hearing. DESCRIPTION: Charles Putman and Associates, Inc., agent for the Morton Group, Boulevard Center, is requesting approval to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of a 2.5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, rezone from R-1-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and to amend Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use. The property is located on the south side of Boynton Beach Boulevard, between South Leisureville Boulevard and Northwest 8th Street. For further details pertaining to this request, please see attached Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No, 96-627, RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Development Board, with a 6-0 vote, recommended to deny this request. T JH:dim Attachments xc: Central File D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\BOUlEVAR\CCAGENDA.WPD EXHIBIT "0" Conditions of Approval Project name: Boulevard Center File number: LUAR 96~010 and CPTA 96-002 Reference: If the alternative use of the subiect and adiacent properties as proposed by staff is accepted by the City Commission the following requirements including procedures apply (see Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 96-627 I DEPARTMENTS I INCLUDE I REJECT I PUBLIC WORKS . t\)()t\)1= UTILITIES - . t\)()NJ: FIRE I POLICE r:, DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I . t\)()t\)F PARKS AND RECREATION - . N()NF FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST - . t\)1 PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. It is recommended that the northern 220 feet of the subject property be reclassified Office Commercial and rezoned C-1, Office/Professional and developed accordingly with a unified development plan incorporating the two parcels between the subject property and the funeral home. 2. A traffic study shall be submitted by the applicant, prior to transmittal of any comprehensive plan text or Future Land Use Map amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. 3. If the subject request is withdrawn staff will process a text amendment incorporating the condition #1 and the recommendation to plan for acquisition of the southern portion of the subject property, and use for a city park in connection with the city-owned property to the south. 4. Property zoned C-1 shall be limted to office, professional or institutional uses only. Hours of operation shall be limited to daytime hours of approximately 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Any dumpsters shall be located to maximize distance from residential properties. A buffer wall shall be constructed according to the Land Development Regulations and .'- thA. ~h"t~.' . ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS fi ::mrl- Rn~rrl r1Ani~1 ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS 6. To be determined. MR:dim D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\BOULEVAR\CONDAPPR,WPD --- ...--........-.. ;' ,,; 1J<1 '~ r=; , . " ' ,:JJ ~.1 . ft . , ',- . -'-, t j 4" I, ... " ",""l. .!', ""I' ,I 'J . -. - , j " . j -II..... . i . - .MINU:rES. ~ : PLANNING-AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 Motion Mr. Aguila moved to approve the minutes of the November 12, 1996 meeting. Mr. Wische seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Report from the Planning and Zoning Department 1. Final Disposition of Last Meeting's Agenda Items This item was dispensed with later in the meeting. 6. OLD BUSINESS None. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Public Hearing Land Use Plan Amendment/Rezoning/Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment Description: Boulevard Center Charles Putman and Associates, Inc. Howard S. Scharlin, Trustee South Side of Boynton Beach Boulevard between South Leisureville Boulevard and Northwest 8th Street Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of a 2.5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, rezone from R-1-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and amend Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use. 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Bradley Miller, a planner with the firm of Charles Putman and Associates, Inc., represented the applicant and owner of the property, Howard Scharlin. He spoke of the appropriate land use and zoning category of this 2.5 acre site for future development. He stated that 2 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10,1996 this site is not appropriate for residential uses. It has direct access to Boynton Beach Boulevard, and it is a strange configuration in that it is narrow. To develop it as residential uses is very restrictive and would be financially infeasible. He advised that staff concurs with this, as indicated in their report and recommendations of approval. Mr. Miller believes C-2 uses are appropriate with the appropriate planning and buffering for the site. He displayed a conceptual plan and committed to the following: Around the perimeter of the site where it abuts the residential, he proposed a 6 foot high masonry wall, finished on both sides. He also proposed a 10 foot wide landscape buffer with 10 foot high trees spaced every 30 feet. The Code only requires the landscape buffer to be 2 1/2 feet, so this is far above the Code criteria. In addition, he agreed that the site would be limited to a one-story building. He reduced the amount of building square footage to 46 percent of what the site could build based on the F.A.R. for this zoning district, and provided the 30 foot building setback that is required adjacent to residential properti He said staff has come up with an alternative recommendation of C-1 for a portion of the site. He agreed with the C-1 uses, still continuing to provide the 6 foot wall, the 10 foot landscape buffer, the landscaping, and single-story building. He pointed out that the wall is not a requirement where C-1 abuts residential. The differences would be the uses that would be permitted by C-1 . With regard to the depth of the parcel, he said staff recommended that the C-1 portion of the site be equal to the C-2 uses that are to the east of this parcel. He did not agree with this. He felt that because of the depth of the parcel, the concessions of C-1 uses, and the buffering andli'mitations that are being provided, the entire site will be appropriate for the C-1 uses. With regard to the possibility of a portion of the property being offered to the City to add to the park site, he displayed an aerial showing the site with Boynton Beach Boulevard to the north and the 3.5 acre park site that was dedication by the applicant to the City in 1990 for a park on the south. He offered the southern half acre of the parcel to add to the park site to be acquired by the City at an appraised value. That would give the northern portion of the property about 2 acres to be rezoned for the C-1. This is not inconsistent with other areas in the City. Several areas of C-1 in the City that abut single-family residential have a depth equal to or greater than what he proposed. More importantly, it is not inconsistent with a previous application for this same property. In 1991, an application was filed for C-1 uses on the northern two acres of the site. Staff recommended approval and the Planning 3 MINUTES PLANNING A1~D DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 and Development Board unanimously recommended approval. However, there was very little discussion at the City Commission meeting at which it was denied. At Chairman Dubs's request, Mr. Rumpf explained C-1 and C-2 zoning districts and uses for the benefit of the audience. Mr. Miller added that the C-1 district is established to provide a transition between the more intensive commercial uses into the residential category. He referred to Exhibit "0" (Conditions of Approval) and stated that Condition 4 limits the site to office professional or institutional uses. The uses are not intrusive to the adjacent residential; otherwise, they would not be there. All of the uses in the C-1 zoning district will be appropriate with this site, considering the buffering and screening requirements that the applicant has committed to. With regard to Condition 3, which deals with text amendment and planning for acquisition of the park, Mr. Miller did not think this was the correct forum to discuss this matter. He said the applicant would be willing to meet with staff on this and work out an arrangement. Mr. Miller referred to Condition 1 again. Although he thinks the C-2 uses are appropriate with the proper buffering and planning, he agreed with the C-1, but not the depth of 220 feet that is proposed in Condition 1. He would like the entire property to be allowed to be developed as C-1. In addition, there are two parcels between this site and the funeral home. One of them has an historic house on it and the other is vacant. Staff recommended that the applicant do a unified development plan that includes those parcels. Mr. Miller pointed out that the applicant does not own those parcels and has no control over them. Mr. Aguila inquired about the depth of the property. Mr. Miller advised that it varies because of the angle. It is about 575 feet deep on the east side and 520 feet deep on the west side. The portion' to the rear is about 108 feet. At one time, that was to be dedicated to the Dick Webber Center. However, there was a reverter clause in the contract that brought that back into the same ownership. Chairman Dubs opened the public hearing. Richard Kerr, 148 N.W. 10th Court, submitted a petition consisting of six pages signed by several residents of Palm Beach Leisureville, Lake of Boynton Estates, and other residents of this area, in opposition to the reclassification from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, and rezoning from R-1-AA to C-2. Mr. Kerr said the residents do not want a strip mall like the one on the east side. He expressed concern about the additional traffic problems that this will create. He submitted a conceptual plan showing that 11 4 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 houses like the ones in Leisureville could be built on this property. Also, there is no water and sewer in that area. Everything west of N.W. 8th Street is on septic tanks. In addition, he did not know what could be built on this property because there is muck on it. Fred Meyer, 118 N.W. 10th Court, stated that most of the people who purchased their homes adjacent to the area in question did so because of the beautiful trees and fields which are presently well kept by the City. They are going to be destroyed by this rezoning. Most of the occupants are in their 70s, 80s, and 90s. The entranceway will be on a dangerous bend of the road. He believes the senior citizens of Leisureville contribute much to the City and need to be protected against having this property rezoned to retail or commercial. Many of the residents walk to exercise. The traffic cutting through is going to make it very dangerous for them to walk. At this time, Chairman Dube acknowledged the presence of Mayor and Mrs. Jerry TaYlor Jean McNally, 128 N.W. 10th Court, recently purchased her home and invested a lot of money in it. She checked the zoning before she purchased her home, and it was zoned residential. Rezoning this to commercial is going to devalue the surrounding properties. She did not think that was fair. She stated that Mr. Scharlin purchased this property when it was residential and she felt he should be held to that. No one else wished to speak; therefore, Chairman Dube declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Miller referred to Mr. Kerr's concern about strip commercial. He felt the C-1 uses address this concern considering the uses that are permitted there. The uses as part of the C-1 are more of th~ professional and doctor office and do not allow the retail uses that Mr. Kerr was concerned about. He said the whole corridor of Boynton Beach Boulevard has become much more intense, which is another reason why residential is not appropriate there and should be more of a commercial or office situation. With regard to the wall situation, he emphasized that one of the conditions of approval is to limit the hours from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. With the wall, the landscaping, and the limitation of hours, it is going to be a much more controlled situation than having an open field next to the existing homes with no wall, allowing anybody to walk through there. With regard to the City maintaining the trees, Mr. Miller advised that this property is privately owned. Also, the majority of the trees are Melaleuca and Australian Pine, which need to be taken out anyway because of the problems experienced with those species. Mr. Miller asked the board to recommend approval, considering the C-1 uses and the proposed buffering, for the entire 2.5 acre site. 5 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 Irene Ventres, 130 N.W. 10th Court, said the City maintains the 20 foot right.ot-way between her property and the trees. She understands that the owners of Quantum gave a certain amount of their back property to the City when Leisureville was built to use as a right-ot-way. She asked how close to the back of her property line is the 6 foot wall going to be. She also asked if a road is going to be built through the property and if there are going to be high poles with bright lights shining all night long. Mr. Rumpt believes there is a two foot setback from the wall to the property owner. Ms. Ventres thought it was 20 feet when she purchased her home. Mr. Rumpf was not describing the easement. He does not believe the easement is located on this parcel. It is adjacent to this property, along the back yards of S.W. 10th. The setback of the wall from this property line and, therefore, this easement, would be 2 feet. However, if the property was site planned, and through the site plan process technical staff realized a potential problem there with the easement and servicing it, comments could be generated that might address that issue at that time. Mr. Miller said the easement Ms. Ventres referred to is to the west of the applicant's property line, to the rear of the lots. In addition, no roads are proposed immediately adjacent to the property line. There is a 10 foot landscape buffer. Chairman Dube pointed out that once it is rezoned, a site plan could come in showing a road. Mr. Miller said the conditions are implementing what is being proposed, which is a 10 foot landscape buffer along that property line. Mr. Aguila asked if the wall is completely on three sides, without any openings. Mr. Miller answered affirmatively. He said it will be all the way around. The only area that might conflict with that is the northern 200 feet where it is adjacent to the existing C-2 zoning. He did not know if the_applicant would be opposed to putting a wall next to C-2 zoning. Mr. Aguila stated that even though C-2 is adjacent to the property in question, if the historical house that is residential maintains residential character, it is going to be impacted by the proposed commercial development. He would like the applicant to commit to bringing the wall all the way across. Mr. Miller said staff recommended that those parcels be zoned from C-2 to C-1 but yet implement the house as part of the development plan for commercial development. He was willing to work with the City on the details. Mr. Aguila asked the applicant if he would extend the wall completely on all three sides and separate the C-1 from the C-2 on all three sides if this board and the Commission do not go along with the unifying of those properties. Mr. Miller answered affirmatively. Mr. Wische said he was on the Commission in 1989/90 when this came up and the Commission denied it. Mr. Wische said he is going to vote against this tonight for the 6 MINUTES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA DECEMBER 10, 1996 same reason he did in 1989/90, which was because of the impact it would have upon the residents in Leisureville. He felt anything other than one family homes would have a terrific impact upon the people, not only in Leisureville, but in the surrounding areas. He did not think a hardship is involved. The was also concerned about the traffic impact. In addition, he pointed out that if it is office professional, you are still going to have to deal with dumpsters and sanitation trucks. Chairman Dube agreed with Ms. McNally that before people buy their homes, they take into consideration the surrounding area. Vice Chairman Golden did not see any change in circumstances since 1990 that warrants approval of this. Motion Mr. Wische moved to deny the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation of a 2.5 acre parcel from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial, rezone from R-1-AA (PUD) to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial, and amend Area 7.a of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element to allow commercial use. Vice Chairman Golden seconded the motion, which carried 6-0. 5. COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Report from the Planning and Zoning Department 1. Final Disposition of Last Meeting's Agenda Items Ms. Heyden reported on what transpired at the City Commission meeting with regard to the items on the previous Planning and Development Board agenda. 7. NEW BUSINESS B. Use Approval 1. Project: Agent: Owner: Location: Quantum Park PID James G. Willard Quantum Associates West side of the intersection of Interstate 95 and Gateway Boulevard 7 7.A.l LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENTIREZONINGI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT BOULEVARD CENTER PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM 96-627 FROM: Chairman and Members, Planning and Zoning Board Tambri J. Heyden, AICP If. rJ Director of Planning and Zoning Department ~.-t.;~ Michael W. Rumpf, Senior Planner TO: THRU: DATE: November 5, 1996 RE: BOULEVARD CENTER (LUAR 96-010, CPTA 96-002) REQUEST FOR FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT INTRODUCTION Charles Putman & Associates, agent for the Morton Group, petitioner, is requesting that a 2.5 acre parcel be rezoned from RIAA (PUD) to C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial) and that the Future Land Use Plan designation for this parcel be amended from Moderate Density Residential to Local Retail Commercial. In addition, the applicant has submitted an application for a Text Amendment to Area 7.a. of the Land Use Problems and Opportunities Section of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element, to allow Office Commercial land use on the subject parcel which is located on the south side of Boynton Beach Boulevard, approximately 400 feet west of N. W. 8th Street (see Exhibit "A" - Location Map and Exhibit "C" - Aerial View). The subject 2.5 acre parcel occupies approximately 200 feet of frontage on West Boynton Beach Boulevard and was originally subdivided from a greater parcel (totalling 6.12 acres), also owned by Howard R. Scharlin, Trustee, when the southern 3.62 acres was dedicated in November, 1990 to the City for parks and recreation purposes (pursuant to the Woolbright Place PUD amended master plan). Although the southern one-half acre of the subject property was deeded to the Exchange Club/Dick Webber Center on June 13, 1991, the property was transferred, in 1993, back to Mr. Scharlin in accordance with a reverter clause within the deed. It should be noted that the City processed applications for land use amendment/rezoning and text amendment for this property (excluding the one-half acre then owned by the Exchange Club) in 1990 and in 1991. The request submitted in 1990, for Local Retail Commercial land use and C-2 zoning, is identical to the current request, and the request made in 1991 was for Office Commercial land use and C-l zoning. Both petitions were denied by the City Commission. If rezoned, the 2.5 acre parcel could be developed for any use permitted in the C-2 zoning district; however, the petitioner proposes to commit to excluding from consideration the following uses: automotive service stations, dry cleaning services, and any uses identified in the Land Development Regulations which handle or store hazardous materials or generate hazardous waste. These and all other uses allowed in the C-2, Neighborhood Commercial zoning district, are listed in Exhibit "B". SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Abutting, or near the subject parcel are the following uses: DIRECTION North Farther north East Southeast South West ZONING n/a R-3 C-2 R-l- A R-I-AA R-I-AA (PUD) USE Boynton Beach Boulevard Casa Blanca Apartments single- family home single family homes/vacant property vacant (city-owned) single family homes (Palm Beach Leisureville) I Boulevard Center 12/5/96 Page 2 Comprehensive Plan - Future Land Use Map & Text The property in question is currently shown on the Future Land Use Element as "Moderate Density Residential", so an amendment of the Future Land Use Element to "Office Commercial", as requested by the applicant, would be necessary. In addition, Area 7. a. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element contains a recommendation that the subject property not be converted to commercial land use. The recommendation for Area 7.a, with that portion proposed to be amended italicized and in brackets, reads as follows: 7.a. Residential Parcels in Vicinity of Old Boynton Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard. Between Congress A venue and Interstate 95 Due to the increased traffic which will be drawn to the Boynton Beach Mall, there will be pressure to rezone the parcels in this area from residential to commercial use. Other than minor adjustments to the existing zoning district boundaries, commercial zoning should not be allowed to extend westward along Old Boynton Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard. Extending commercial zoning along these thoroughfares would cause serious traffic congestion and degrade the residential environment in the adjacent neighborhoods. In particular, commercial zoning should not be permitted on the residential lots and small parcels which lie along Old Boynton Road to the northwest of the Florida Power and Light substation, and should not be permitted on the 5.87 acre outparcellying along the east side of Palm Beach Leisureville. One addition to the commercial zoning district is desirable, however: It is recommended that land use on the southern 300 feet of the R-2 zoned property owned by Florida Power and Light Company, at the northeast comer of Boynton Beach Boulevard and Old Boynton Road be changed to Local Retail Commercial, and the zoning changed to C-2 Neighborhood Commercial. The development of this parcel should be contingent upon its being combined with the vacated right- of-way for Old Boynton Road, and the small triangular-shaped parcel at this intersection, and the rezoning of the combined parcels to a planned commercial development. The northern 330 feet of the Florida Power and Light Company property should be changed from Medium Density Residential land use and R-2 zoning to Low Density Residential land use and RIA zoning. This land use/zoning change would prevent duplex dwellings from being placed immediately next to a single-family neighborhood. [The vacant outparcel which lies along the east side of Palm Beach Leisureville should be limited to either single-family residential use, with a maximum density comparable to the adjacent portion of Leisureville, or to a low-intensity institutional use.] As this last sentence in the recommendation for Area 7.a is contrary to the subject request, the petitioner has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment. Only the title for Area 7.a, and the revised text is shown below, which read as follows: 7.a. Residential Parcels in Vicinity of Old Boynton Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard. Between Congress Avenue and Interstate 95 [The vacant out parcel which lies along the east side of Palm Beach Leisureville has direct access with Boynton Beach Boulevard via an existing median opening. The frontage parcel of 2.5 acres should be limited to Office/Retail use consistent with the land use to the east. The balance of the property south of the frontage parcel should be a low intensity civic or institutional use, or a neighborhood park.] Issues/Discussion Section 9.c.7 of Appendix A, Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, requires the evaluation of plan amendment/rezoning requests against criteria related to the impacts which would result from the approval of such requests. These criteria and an evaluation of the impacts which would result from the proposed development are as follows: a. Whether the proposed rezoning would be consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies. }. Boulevard Center 12/5/96 Page 3 The proposed land use amendment/rezoning would not be consistent with Area 7.a. of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element, which was adopted into the Plan by Policy 1.16.4. However, the applicant has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to Area 7.a. to amend the existing language to accommodate the proposed change in land use and zoning, and is described above. The "Discussion of Supply and Demand for Commercial Land" in the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element Support Document indicates that there may be up to 198 acres of excess commercial land at build-out, or a 30 acre surplus when certain adjustments are considered. Thus, it was concluded that the supply of commercial land in the Boynton Beach market area will nearly match the demand. In addition, this section of the Plan also states the following: "The Future Land Use Plan which is proposed for the City and areas to be annexed by the City will accommodate all of anticipated demand for commercial land through build-out. Therefore, the City should not change the land use to commercial categories, beyond that which is shown on the proposed Future Land Use Plan, except for minor boundary adjustments, small infill parcels, or commercial uses of a highly specialized nature, which have speciallocational or site requirements, and therefore cannot be easily accommodated on already designated commercial area". (page 40) Also on page 40 of the Future Land Use Support Document is the following recommendation regarding the location of commercial uses: "The City should continue its policy of encouraging commercial uses to be located at intersections, and discouraging strip commercial." Policy 1.19.6 of the Comprehensive Plan states: "Subsequent to Plan adoption, do not allow commercial acreage which is greater than the demand which has been projected, unless it can be demonstrated that a particular property is unsuitable for other uses, or a geographic need exists which cannot be fulfilled by existing commercially-zoned property, or no other suitable property for a commercial use exists for which a need can be demonstrated, and the commercial use would comply with all other applicable Comprehensive Plan policies" . Policy 1.17.1 of the Comprehensive Plan states: "Discourage additional commercial and industrial uses beyond those which are currently shown on the Future Land Use Map, except where access is greatest and impacts on residential land uses are least". Although the Future Land Use Plan for the City is projected to accommodate all of the anticipated demand for commercial land through build-out, Policy 1.19.6 of the Comprehensive Plan allows additional commercial acreage which is greater than the demand projected, if it can be demonstrated that a particular property is unsuitable for other uses. Since the subject 2.5 acre parcel represents less than half the acreage originally earmarked in Area 7.a for residential use (after 3.6 acres was dedicated to the City), it is arguable that the entire subject parcel is no longer suitable for the development of single-family homes as originally recommended, particularly due to its proximity to Boynton Beach Boulevard. Although the subject parcel meets the "where access is greatest" criteria of Policy 1.17.1, it does not, however, meet the criteria of Policy 1.17.1 which states where "impacts on residential land uses are least", nor is it consistent with the recommendation that commercial land be limited to intersections and that strip development be discouraged. There will be further discussion concerning consistency with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies in subsequent sections of this memorandum, and a recommendation for the most optimal use of this property given current plan recommendations, the proximity to single-family neighborhoods, and the commercial land use pattern within this vicinity. 3 Boulevard Center 12/5/96 Page 4 b. Whether the proposed rezoning would be contrary to the established land use pattern, or would create an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, or would constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property owner as contrasted with protection of the public welfare. Although the proposed rezoning would not be consistent with the recommendation for Area 7.a., one factor, the reduction in size of this parcel since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, has changed, which affects the applicability of the original recommendation. The reduction in the size of this parcel (which occurred when a portion of Area 7.a was dedicated to the City) presents the necessity to reconsider the applicability of the original recommendation for residential land use, particularly since the remaining 2.5 acres are adjacent to Boynton Beach Boulevard. However, the primary criteria in evaluating the optimal land use of this parcel should include impact upon the adjacent residential properties, proximity to and access from Boynton Beach Boulevard, and the existence of C-2 zoning up to the eastern side of the subject property. With respect to the existing land use pattern, the commercial zoning located along the south side of Boynton Beach Boulevard, extends one block in depth, or approximately 215 feet. As the subject parcel, at the center of the property, extends over 540 feet southward from Boynton Beach Boulevard, and as the adjacent uses are all residential, development of the entire subject parcel for commercial use would not be consistent with the established land use pattern. Within the ConclusiOn/Recommendation section below, staff describes an alternative proposal for this parcel, which is better tailored to the size and configuration of this parcel, better utilizes adjacent parcels, and would be more compatible with adjacent land uses than the subject proposal. c. Whether changed or changing conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable. A condition or related characteristic involving this site that has changed is the reduction of the developable portion of the original "outparcel" (as it is referred to in the recommendation for Area 7.a) to 2.5 acres. This remaining property is the northern portion of the original "outparcel", adjacent to Boynton Beach Boulevard. The small parcel size directly affects the developability of this parcel as discussed under item "f" below. d. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with utility systems, roadways, and other public facilities. Although there are existing municipal water and sewer mains along Boynton Beach Boulevard in the vicinity of the subject parcel, construction drawings for connecting to the existing system would not be required until the time of site plan approval. Concerning roadways, the traffic study submitted was written to indicate conformance with local levels of service standards, but not to prove conformance with the Palm Beach County Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance (TPS). Palm Beach County has reviewed this study and verified that the project would be consistent with the City I S Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan; however, the study I s methodology would not meet the requirements of the County I s TPS. A traffic study which meets all traffic requirements of the County, which is necessary for concurrency certification, is a requirement of land use amendments and rezonmgs. e. Whether the proposed rezoning would be compatible with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties, or would affect the property values of adjacent and nearby properties. Glare and light from parking lot illumination, noise from trucks, noise from loading and unloading activities, noise due to unloading of dumpsters and removal of compactors, noise from cars and patrons in parking areas, noise during late or early hours of operation, odors from dumpsters (which can be detected up to 200 feet away), trash and litter accumulation and unpleasant aesthetics in the rear of commercial buildings are those impacts that are typically associated with commercial uses. Given that the site is in close proximity to single-family homes on both the east and west sides, these impacts would likely be felt to some degree by adjacent property owners if this entire site was rezoned and developed as proposed. I.( Boulevard Center 12/5/96 Page 5 f. Whether the property is physically and economically developable under the existing zoning. Under the existing land use and zoning, the property could be developed for a maximum of 18 single- family residences. However, dedication of road right-of-way, platting of lots, and provision of an adequate buffer along Boynton Beach Boulevard would likely reduce this yield by as much as fifty percent. The applicant has submitted documentation which indicates that the property is economically undevelopable under the existing zoning, owing to the small parcel size, the minimum lot sizes required by the existing zoning district, the proximity to Boynton Beach Boulevard, the economic feasibility of developing a residential project of so few units and the difficulty of financing such a development. Staff recognizes these negative characteristics of the site; however, staff also recognizes the existence of vacant property to the east which could be assembled with the subject site to increase land area and the potential developability for a residential infill project, as well as the potential negative impact on the developability of adjacent vacant property if the entire subject site is developed for a commercial use. g. Whether the proposed rezoning is of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole. Due to the proximity of this site to single-family homes, and the intensity of the commercial uses allowed under the C-2 zoning district, the proposed rezoning is not of a scale which is reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the City as a whole. Within the section below titled Conclusion/Recommendation, staff presents an alternative to the proposed request which is a compromise between the existing recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan and the subject request. Staff feels that this alternative is reasonably related to the needs of the area, while at the same time is consistent with established land use patterns within the area and minimizes impacts on the adjacent neighborhoods. h. Whether there are adequate sites elsewhere in the City for the proposed use, in districts where such use is already allowed. As outlined in the discussion of supply and demand for commercial land in the Future Land Use Element Support Documents of the Comprehensive Plan, "the Future Land Use Plan which is proposed for the City and areas to be annexed by the City will accommodate all of the anticipated demand for commercial land through build-out". This paragraph of the Plan further states that "the City should not change the land use to commercial categories, beyond that which is shown on the proposed Future Land Use Plan, except for minor boundary adjustments, small infill parcels, or commercial uses of a higWy specialized nature, which have speciallocational or site requirements, and therefore cannot be easily accommodated on already designated commercial areas". This discussion is formalized in Policy 1.19.6 of the Comprehensive Plan (see discussion under item "a" concerning Policy 1.19.6). It is arguable that there are adequate sites zoned C-l in the City, (which is the recommended zoning proposed by staff and explained within the recommendations section below), that are either vacant or developed, but have vacant floor area that could be occupied by most of the uses allowed under C-l that would potentially locate on the subject parcel. However, the Comprehensive Plan does make an exception within Policy 1.19.6 for small infill parcels. The alternative proposed by staff includes a reduction in the area of the subject parcel to be designated for commercial use, which size would qualify for the size exception indicated in Policy 1.19.6. Conclusions/Recommendations Staff recommends that the requests submitted by Charles Putman & Associates be denied based, in part, on the analysis stated herein which concludes that the requests would be inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and support data text, inconsistent with the established land use pattern within the area, and would not minimize land use conflicts and impacts on residential areas. In addition to this recommendation, staff has formulated an alternative proposal for this parcel which if acceptable by the City Commission, should ultimately be incorporated into the recommendation for Area 7.a, and reflected on the Future Land Use Map consistent with the conditions of approval ~ Boulevard Center 12/5/96 Page 6 indicated in Exhibit "D". Staff's recommendation was formulated based on the site's proximity to Boynton Beach Boulevard, the established commercial land use pattern along Boynton Beach Boulevard to the east of the subject site, the limitation to further westward expansion of commercial development beyond this parcel, the existence of vacant, residentially-zoned property adjacent to this site, and based on maintaining the developability of surrounding vacant parcels. Staff has placed a high priority on minimizing impacts upon the adjacent neighborhoods and maintaining developability of the remaining vacant, residentially-zoned and commercially-zoned property adjacent to the east of the subject site. As residential development of that portion of this site in close proximity to Boynton Beach Boulevard may not be practical and economically feasible, staff recommends that commercial use be allowed, but only on the northern portion of the site, limited to a depth generally equal to the commercial pattern established to the east. Existing commercial zoning and uses extend southward from Boynton Beach Boulevard one (1) block in depth, or approximately 220 feet. Staff has estimated that this northern portion of the site is just over one (1) acre. Commercial use of this portion of the site would be contingent upon assemblage with those vacant, commercially-zoned parcels located between this site and the funeral home to the east. The combined acreage of the two areas is approximately 1.5 acres. It should be noted that this adjacent parcel is occupied by a single-family home listed on the City's new Historic Site Survey. Although this unit is not on the list of units proposed for preservation, and although there is currently no mechanism (historic preservation ordinance) for preserving historic structures, if this unit is ultimately found worthy of preservation by the City, the structure should be adaptively reused and incorporated into the ultimate project. Furthermore, rather than C-2 zoning as proposed, this property would be rezoned to C-1, Office/Professional, along with the adjacent property with which it is to be assembled. The C-I zoning would create a transition between the C-2 zoning and the residential properties to the west and south/southeast. This transition is created by virtue of the C-1 uses which generally generate minimal truck traffic, paper-type garbage and exhibit 8:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M. hours of operation. Although there is currently a curb-cut in the median of Boynton Beach Boulevard directly in front of the subject parcel, this may not be an ideal location for access given the speed of traffic and limited site distance at this location (The Florida Department of Transportation annually reviews selected curb-cuts for consistency with current DOT operational policy and may consider removal of this median cut). By combining these parcels, it is possible that access could be achieved through those existing points of access used by the funeral home which are closer to the intersection with N.W. 8th Street (this of course would require proper site design, and coordination and access arrangements with the funeral home). Additional development conditions intended to minimize impacts on residential areas are also recommended by staff, which involve the limitations on uses, hours of business operation, and buffering, and are indicated in Exhibit "D" - Conditions of Approval. The remaining southern portion of the site would appropriately be combined with the vacant property to the east and developed as it is currently zoned, R-1A, Single Family Residential. As an alternative to residential use of the southern portion of this site, the City could consider acquiring it and combining it with that City-owned property to the south to facilitate the development of a park equivalent to a neighborhood park rather than a mini-park. This recommendation is based on the current low level of service for neighborhood parks within the Lake Boynton Estates Subdivision, which will not likely improve due to the inability to expand the existing Hibiscus Park, and the lack of available land for new park development within this neighborhood. This alternative plan for the subject parcel satisfies all requirements of Comprehensive Plan policies and text, is consistent with the established land use pattern within the area including that created by the commercial uses, would minimize the impacts on residential land uses, and would best maintain the developability of vacant properties adjacent to the subject site. If this alternative is desirable to the City, staff would propose to process the corresponding amendments to the Comprehensive Plan concurrent with those amendments generated by the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). , EXHIBIT "A" LOCA TION MAP 7 1AA I .J c...-- EXHIBIT "B" C-2 ZONING DISTRICT (USES ALLOWED) , B. C-2 DIGBBORBOOD COMMBRCIAL DISTRICT. These district c,.lIlation8 will provide a limited number of small c~~ Ircial facilities of a retail convenience nature, &rr~~ed to service individual residential neighborhoods. Giaerally, the desired locations for these facilities are near aDd about the geocenter or other planned nucleus of the neighborhood, conforming to the general development plan. 1. Uses permitted. Within any C-2 neighborhood commercial zoning district, no building, structure, land or water, or any part thereof, shall be erected altered, or used, in whole or in part, except for one (1) or more of the following specified uses. Those Adopted April t. 1"'. Ordlaeaee 0"'02 .."t.ed \. 2-27 10 . 56 uses, however, which are indicated in lA. below shall require conditional use approval, and those uses which are listed under lB. below shall require an environmental review permit, prior to the establishment at these uses: All stores and shops in the C-2 district shall be limited to retail sales. a. Any use permitted in C-l district. b. Any use which is a conditional use in the C-l zoning district.* The following uses, provided that the gross floor area of such use does not exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet: c. Automobile parts and marine hardware stores, excluding any installation on premises, and excluding machine shop service. d. Camera and audio-visual equipment and supply stores. e. Furniture stores and home furnishings; antique stores, excluding auction houses, shall be a permitted use i~ limited to selling only objects of value such as quality antiques, art objects, jewelry and the like, but not used merchandise generally. f. Plower shops and sale of house plants. g. Bicycle shops. h. Luggage stores. i. Music stores. j. Art and ceramic stores. k. Jewelry and cosmetic stores. I . LocJcsmi th shops. m. Sporting goods, excluding sale of aumunition or firearms; game, and toy stores; bait and tackle shops. n. Paint, wallpaper, tile, carpet, draperies, blinds aDd shades, and interior decorator shops. Office supplies, equipment, and furniture. Art, craft, trophy, hobby, and costume shops, and sewing supplies; art galleries and artists' studios. Book stores, religious goods, card shops, tobacco shops, and news stores. Pet shops, excluding kennels or boarding of animals or keeping animals in outdoor kennels. Repair or service shops, excluding rebuilding or refinishing for retail goods that are typically sold in the stores which are permitted uses in the C-2 district. All outdoor display or storage ..... .. -,. p . . . ..~ ., ~ q. r. s. Adopt.d Apr11 t. 1"5. Ord1aaao. 0'5-03 ...1..d \ 2-28 (I 16 in conjunction with such uses shall be prohibited, however. Televisions; radio, video, and stereo equipment and supplies. Household appliances and parts for same. CUrio, souvenir, and gift shops, excluding sale of used merchandise. Beer and wine sales, limited to consumption off premises. The following personal and household services: Barber shops, beauty salons., manicurists, tanning salons, pet grooming, off-premises carpet and upholstery cleaning, maid service, tailors and dressmakers. Laundromats and retail laundering services, provided that the floor area for such uses is entirely enclosed. Retail photographic studios and photofinishing service. Fabrication and installation of furniture slipcovers. Taxicab offices and parking, excluding service or repairs on the premises. Automotive service stations, without major repairs (see definitions: "major repairsR), and including car washes as an accessory use, provided that at least one (1) frontage lies along a four-lane collector or arterial road, and the site is developed in accordance with Section 11.L. In the C-2 district, repair and service of vehicles, other than refueling, shall be limited to automobiles, motorcycles, and pick-up trucks with a rated. capacity ot not more than one (1) ton. All repair and service of vehicles shall be done within an enclosed building.. Print shops. Drycleaning service, limited to handling goods that are brought to the premises by retail customers. . Private clubs~ lodges, and fraternal organizations.. Drive-up, drive-through, or drive-in service for any of the retail uses or personal services listed under l.c. through 1.tt. above.. Drive-up and drive-through facilities for financial institutions shall be a permitted use, however. Art or recreational instruction. t. u. v. w. x. y. z. aa. bb. cc. dd. ee. ft. 99. . .J!: bh. The following uses, provided that the gross floor area of such use does not exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet: ii. Grocery, food, ice cream, confectionery, and health food stores; delicatessens, butcher shops Adopted Aprll t, U'S. Ordlllellc. On-OJ .."1.ed 2-29 I). , '- 56 and seafood stores, vegetable and fruit stores, convenience food stores, and bakeries; catering seIVice. jj. General hardware stores. kk. Restaurants, including seIVing of alcoholic beverages only in connection with the seIVing of meals. 11. Drive-through, drive-up, or drive-in restaurants.* mm. Sundries, notions, and variety stores. 00. Drug stores. 00. Clothing, clothing accessory, and shoe stores. pp. Lawn and garden supply stores. qq. Drive-up, drive-through or drive-in seIVice for any of the retail uses or personal services listed under 1.ii. through 1.pp. above.* Drive-up and drive-through facilities for financial institutions shall be a permitted use, however. rr. A single-family residence, incidental to a permitted, commercial use, located on the same lot as the commercial use. Such residence shall have a minimum living area of seven hundred fifty (750) square feet and shall be limited to occupancy by t~ property owner or business owner/operator. All uses listed under 1.c. through 1.qq. above shall specify the gr08S floor area on the application for an occupational license. Bach retail store and adjacent stores or bays under the same ownership or control that are of a similar or related use shall be considered to be a single store for the purpose of computing floor area. LA. Conditional uses allowed: Those uses specified above which are followed by an asterisk (*) shall be deemed to be conditional uses, which may be considered and granted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 11.2. ' ~.u.e. requiring an environmental review permit: Within J:aay C-2 neighborhood commercial zoning district, no :~.building, structure, land or water, or any part thereot, shall be erected, altered, or used, in whole or in part, for any of the following specified uses, unless an environmental review permit is secured in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in Section 11.3: a. Automotive service stations, subject to the provision of 1.cc. above. b. Print Shops. c. Drycleaning on premises, limited to handling AdOp~.d Aprll t. It''. Ordl...c. 0".03 I.Vl..d 2-30 /3 56 goods that are brought to the premises by retai: customers. . d. Any use listed under 6.B.1 or 6.B.1A, which use! handles, stores, or displays hazardous materiall or which generates hazardous waste as defined b~ 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261. 2. Prohibited uses. Within any C-2 neighborhood commercial zoning district, no building, structure, land or water, or any part thereof, shall be erected altered, or used, in whole or in part, for any of tt. following uses: a. Any use not specifically allowed in accordance with the list of uses under 1., 1A., and lB., above. b. Any use which is either specifically allowed or prohibited in another zoning district, which is not specifically allowed in accordance with the list of uses under 1., LA., and lB., above. c. OUtdoor storage or display of any type. d. Sale of firearms or ammunition. e. Sale of fireworks. ' f. Temporary employment centers, operated on a walk-in basis.. ' g. Any wholesal~ establishments, storage as a principal use, or off-premises storage, or distribution. h. Sale of alcoholic beverages, other than beer or wine. i. Serving of alcoholic beverages, except for consumption on premises within a duly licensed restaurant and in conjunction with the serving 0 regular meals. j. Lumber yards or building materials stores. k. Sales bazaars, farmer's markets, flea or thieves markets, swap shops and trading posts. Adopt.d April t. 1"'. Or4i...e. 0"-02 ....1..4 \ 2-31 IV EXHIBIT "e" AERIAL VIEW OF PROPERTY If .--.-..-..----...--.------.-..---.-.--.--. EXHIBIT "e" EXHIBIT "D" CONDITIONS OF APPROV AL 11 EXHIBIT "0" Conditions of Approval Project name: Boulevard Center File number: LUAR 96-010 and CPTA 96-002 Reference: If the alternative use of the subiect and adiacent properties as oroposed by staff is acceoted bv the City Commission the following reauirements includina orocedures aooly (see Planning and Zoning Deoartment Memorandum No. 96-627 , .. INCLUDE REJECT LJ...., ""'" I MENTS PUBLIC WORKS . f\I()f\l1= UTILITIES . f\I()f\l1= FIRE POLICE ~ . NIINI- DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ( . NONF PARKS AND RECREATION .~ FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST I PLANNING AND ZONING Comments: 1. It is recommended that the northern 220 feet of the subject property be reclassified Office Commercial and rezoned C-1, Office/Professional and developed accordingly with a unified development plan incorporating the two parcels between the subject property and the funeral home. 2. A traffic study shall be submitted by the applicant, prior to transmittal of any comprehensive plan text or Future Land Use Map amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. 3. If the subject request is withdrawn staff will process a text amendment incorporating the condition #1 and the recommendation to plan for acquisition of the southern portion of the subject property, and use for a city park in connection with the city-owned property to the south. 4. Property zoned C-1 shall be limted to office, professional or institutional uses only. Hours of operation shall be limited to daytime hours of approximately 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Any dumpsters shall be located to maximize distance from residential properties. A buffer wall shall be constructed according to the Land Development Regulations and nl::l~F>rl \Alhoro tho ","k;o"t ::lhlltc::" . .. ADDITIONAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS R Tn hI" ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS 7. To be determined. MR:dim D:\SHARE\WP\PROJECTS\BOULEVAR\CONDAPPR,WPD It ~c./~,,~ ~_~,k__ ~ qcc;.".",s.7 .s t...a~(.... ( ~/ , ~ _, '\'- <r- J __,G L V ~~~~ t;; 1 J (/ N<.> J. i /'10 V, g rp .{ ..,.../, <:..Qot.. 1'. f1 c <"- ~ .:t:'P ,(\ R<:.... r~'. ~JJ py.~<" V7- <:it..-- ~ t10 f1 c::..""~ ~ " .:. d~ 1)<=~ :3 'Dee::-. (0 7k:. /0 ~( C (. rc...l<>-fe ~Q. '-y p..., ~ (~(. ... h<:J.-\. ~ 1-~ I '-_ X4 tY-1, .} (' c) tI' X CJ;~ 'if ':><' ~> ~ '/' V- d y~~ "'") ~,-';;f; c "~,A-~"",, ~rG t? tf- P. ?I-f C; ry (""' ~....., : " so ~ ?If. ~~.tL*, " .M h~ ff' .,; ~ Uc 1'.(- \ , \ ",,1) {O ~_~~~__ "6~e9- -Ie po "7 .a.l'i ___ _'__~_ _~___ ~___u____~_\-_~_("___n- . -,---------- - ,~~-- - -~ ---- -~ ._--_...._-_._~-----~-