AGENDA DOCUMENTS
PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM NO. 90-078
TO:
James cherof, City Attorney
THRU:
Timothy P. Cannon, Interim Planning Director 7l:
FROM: James J. Golden, Senior City Planner
DATE: March 30, 1990
SUBJECT: Annexation of Parcels South of Boynton Beach Mall
Recently, several applications were submitted to the Planning
Department for annexation, land use element and rezoning south of
the Boynton Beach Mall. One of the parcels is 49+ acres in size
and may constitute a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). At a
recent City commission meeting, it was decided not to seek a
binding letter from the Florida Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) concerning DRI status, at the request of the applicant.
Since that time, the applicant has met with the Planning
Department and has indicated that his clients are considering the
submittal of an application for a DRI, which would include the
49+ acre parcel and possibly several other parcels. However, the
developer would first like to annex these properties into the
City prior to submittal of the DRI and applications for land use
element amendment and rezoning. The City's zoning regulations
state that "boundaries and zoning of all lands annexed into the
City shall be determined at the time of annexation" (Section
3.A.5.e of Appendix A-Zoning). There has been one situation,
however, where the application to annex was processed prior to
the applications for land use element amendment and rezoning.
This was done in connection with an application for an amended
DRI for the Sears store at the Boynton Beach Mall. A pine
preserve area and a canal right-of-way were annexed so that a
portion of the property could be utilized for parking for the
Sears store. A copy of the Annexation Agreement is attached for
your review.
with respect to the above, would it be possible to follow the
same procedure for the proposed DRI south of the Boynton Beach
Mall? Please respond to this inquiry at your earliest possible
convenience, as the applicant cannot proceed to meet the City's
submittal deadlines until this matter has been resolved.
)7JdL
GOLDEN
JJG:frb
Enc
cc: City Manager
Kieran Kilday, Kilday & Assoc, 1551 Forum PI, Bldg 100A,
West Palm Beach, Fl 33401
A:PM90-078
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
AN AGREEMENT between Boynton-JCP Associates,
Ltd.
("Applicant") and Lhe City of Boynton Beach ("City") and effec-
tive upon the date affixed next to the authorized signature of
the last party to execute this Agreement.
PREMISES
A. The Applicant has filed an Application to annex
the property whose legal description is attached as Exhibit "A",
(the "Property") into the City.
B. The Property is designated as .Open Space" in the
Development Order pursuant to Palm Beach county Resolution No.
R-75-297, issued April 24, 1975, as amended by Palm Beach County A
Resolutions No. R-7B-1132 and R-Bl-1652 ("Development Order").
C. Section 171.062(2), Florida Statutes, (1985) pro-
vides:
(2) If the area annexed was subject to a
county land use plan and county zoning
..or subdivision regulations, said regula-
tions shall remain in full force and
effect until the area is rezoned by the
municipality to comply with its compre-
hensive plan.
D. The parties wish to proceed with the annexation of
the Property prior to adopting a City Land lIse Category or City
Zoning District for the Property.
E. The parties wish to set forth an understanding for
the procedure the Applicant shall follow to assure that the
Applicant will apply for a City Land Use Category, City Zoning
District and, if required, an Amendment of the Development Order.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. The City, if and when the Property is annexed,
will not require, as part of the annexation process, that a City
Land Use Category or City Zoning of the Property be adopted prior
to, or simultaneously with, annexation of the Property.
2. If required, the Applicant will, as soon as prac-
ticable after the annexation, process a Notification of Proposed
Change to a previously Approved DRI ("Development Order Amend-
ment") which, if approved, will result in utilizing the property
for parking as shown on Exhibit "B". .
3. If the Development Order Amendment (if required)
permits the Property to be used for parking, the Applicant will,
either simultaneously with the Development Order Amendment Pro-
cess, or immediately after the Development Order Amendment is
adopted, file, with the City an Application for Land Use Element
Amendment and Application for Rezoning to permit construction of
a parking lot on the Property.
4. On or before April 1, 1988, regardless of whether
a Development Order Amendment is in process or obtained, the
Applicant will apply for a City Land Use Element Amendment and
City Rezoning of the Property consistent with the use permitted
by the Development Order as amended.
5. The Applicant acknowledges that the annexation of
the Property creates no vested rights in the Applicant to use the
Property as anything other than .Open Space" under the Develop-
ment Order unless and until both:
A. The Development Order is amended (if such
Amendment is required) to permit use of the Property for a use
other than .Open Space";
and Zoning
Space. "
B. The City adopts a Land Use Element Category
District which is consistent a use other than "Open
WHEREFORE, the parties set their hands and seal on the
dates set forth below.
:
:~?}!Y!l::D'
Date signed by Applicant:
~
July
2.1
, 1987
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Date signed by City:
July , 1907
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
AN AGREEMENT between Boynton-JCP Associates,
("Applicant") and t.he City of Boynton Beach ("City") and effec-
Ltd.
tive upon the date affixed next to the authorized signature of
the last party to execute this Agreement.
PREMISES
A. The Applicant has filed an Application to annex
the property whose legal description is attached as Exhibit "A",
(the "Property") into the City.
B. The Property is designated as "Open Space" in the
Development Order pursuant to Palm Beach County Resolution No.
R-75-297, issued April 24, 1975, as amended by Palm Beach County ~
Resolutions No. R-78-1132 and R-81-1652 ("Development Order").
C. Section 171.062(2), Florida Statutes, (1965) pro-
vides:
(2) If the area annexed was subject to a
county land use plan and county zoning
or subdivision regulations, said regula-
tions shall remain in full force and
effect until the area is rezoned by the
municipality to comply with its compre-
hensive plan.
D. The parties wish to proceed with the annexation of
the Property prior to adopting a City Land Use Category or City
Zoning District for the Property.
E. The parties wish to set forth an understanding for
the procedure the Applicant shall follow to assure that the
Applicant will apply for a City Land Use Category, City Zoning
District and, if required, an Amendment of the Development Order.
NOW, THEREFOREr the parties agree as follows:
1. The City, if and when the Property is annexed,
will not require, as part of the annexation process, that a City
Land Use Category or City Zoning of the Property be adopted prior
to, or simultaneously with, annexation of the Property.
2. If required, the Applicant will, as soon as prac-
ticable after the annexation, process a Notification of Proposed
Change to a Previously Approved DRI ("Development Order Amend-
ment") which, if approved, will result in utilizing the Property
for parking as shown on Exhibit "B".
3. If the Development Order Amendment (if required)
permits the Property to be used for parking, the Applicant will,
either simultaneously with the Development Order Amendment Pro-
cess, or immediately after the Development Order Amendment is
adopted, file, with the City an Application for Land Use Element
Amendment and Application for Rezoning to permit construction of
a parking lot on the Property.
4. On or before April 1, 1988, regardless of whether
a Development Order Amendment is in process or obtained, the
Applicant will apply for a City Land Use Element Amendment and
City Rezoning of the Property consistent with the use permitted
by the Development Order as amended.
5. The Applicant acknowledges that the annexation of
the Property creates no vested rights in the Applicant to use the
Property as anything other than "Open Space" under the Develop-
ment Order unless and until both:
A. The Development Order is amended (if such
Amendment is required) to permit use of the Property for a use
other than .Open Space";
and Zoning
Space. "
B. The City adopts a Land Use Element Category
District which is consistent a use other than "Open
WHEREFORE, the parties set their hands and seal on
dates set forth below.
the
::~N?'??:;CD'
Date signed by Applicant:
.
July
2.1
, 1987
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Date signed by City:
July , 1987
0ou-t ~'i:! P'l€V,fA'0~._ 3- b-q()
C'1
C-rvl,n,,,,-,,:,' 'Y'- hi.<. ~J:i-", -
,4. &zL~d
C. Consider six applications submitted by Kilday and
Associates for Annexation, Land Use Element Amendment and
Rezoning
City Manager Miller indicated the City was "going with
this". Tim Cannon, Interim Planning Director referred to a
49 acre commercial parcel being over one of the threshholds
for a development of regional impact. Mr. Cannnon's conver-
sations with DCA and Treasure Coast indicate it probably is
not a DRI since they aren't proposing any specific develop-
ment. The threshhold for a commercial DRI is 40 acres of
commercial. Mr. Cannon indicated when they have projects
where it appears it might be a DRI, they prefer to bring it
to the Commission and the Commission, if they choose, can
ask DCA for a binding letter. Mr. Cannon noted the applica-
tions would have to be complete before they are sent to the
Planning & Zoning Board and the Commission.
Mr. Kieran Kilday of Kilday & Associates explained Mr.
Winchester has involvement in some of the parcels but not
all of them. He referred to a map and pointed out the 49
acre parcel. He stated Mr. Winchester has no development
plans at this time and they were asking for annexation but
were stipulating that the property will not develop until it
is rezoned a Planned Commercial Development. If it is a
DRI, they will have to come in as a DRI. Until you have
development plans you can't say whether you are or not.
From that standpoint he thought it could be processed as is.
If the State has an issue or a question, they always feel
free to come back when it goes through the 90 day review
process. His concern was that when the term "binding let-
ter" is used, it is almost like putting a red flag in front
of the State saying take a look and what do you think.
Suddenly several months later we don't know. In view of
this, they had requested a finding with the stipulation that
the 49 acres receive no development approval at this time
and it be annexed into the City at the same time as the
other smaller parcels. He asked the Commission to recommend
to staff that they continue processing the annexation with
that stipulation.
The second item Mr. Kilday addressed dealt with three small
parcels that he had disagreed with staff on. One of these
was part of Mr. Winchester's original parcel. The other two
were separate ownership entities. All those entities were
less than three acres in size and language was brought up in
the Plan under problems and Opportunities which said the
Commission should promote intensive commercialization of
this area. It should be annexed and be a planned develop-
ment. The dilemma Mr. Kilday was in was that the three par-
cels were not three acres in size and did not qualify for
the Planned Commercial District Ordinance. When he made his
submittal he addressed this. Because the word "should" was
used and while he would like it to be planned commercial
developments (they are in fact submitting site plans showing
the development plan for the parcel), they cannot request
1
that zoning district. His feeling was that they did not
need a text amendment. This was an issue that he had gone
back and forth with staff on. The reason the text amendment
issue was critical was because if they needed a text amend-
ment, those three small parcels were going to have to go
through the same long six month process as the 49 acres. He
asked for interpretation from the Commission in terms of the
term being "should" that this property could leap ahead
without having to wait for a text amendment on the three
parcels. Mr. Kilday noted he represented all six of the
properties.
Technical discussion took place about parcel D wanting to
have an oil/lube operation. Mr. Kilday noted they had paid
close attention to the topic discussed just previous to this
on the Agenda and when the Ordinance was complete, part of
the proposal was to allow oil changes which had been caught
in that same minimum repair definition. Mr. Kilday didn't
have a problem with it being a conditional use for the
smaller parcels but he thought there should be permitted
uses for the larger "Sears-type" operations.
Remarks were made about parcels A & B. Vice Mayor Olenik
stated he would much rather see parcel A developed as one
parcel and look at an outparcel there than have it separate.
He referred to a problem on Congress Ave. and Hypoluxo Rd.
where an outparcel which is a corner chunk of a shopping
center property has ended up not being developed because
someone else owned it. He was not sure he wanted to see a
service station on the subject corner. Mr. Kilday made
other technical remarks about parcels A, B, and C.
Mayor Moore asked why the City was having so much trouble
with this. He thought the City should be "embracing" this
with open arms. Now it appeared it had blown up into an
argument between Mr. Cannon and the applicants. The Mayor
didn't think stumbling blocks should be thrown in front of
these people. The Mayor indicated every time these proper-
ties attempt to come into the City, they get involved in red
tape at the staff level. The Mayor asked City Manager
Miller to get involved to see if we couldn't get these
people together so we could move forward on this, within the
bounds of reason and law.
The Vice Mayor asked what kind of action the applicant was
looking for at this time. The Mayor thought they wanted an
interpretation by the Commission. The City Manager stated
the applicant wanted to get involved in processing the
application and also relative to the three si tes \~hich are
under acreage and the interpretation of the word "should",
so these properties could be moved ahead. He thought that
was basically the two areas before the Commission at this
time.
2
Motion
vice Mayor Olenik moved to grant the interpretation that Mr.
Kilday was requesting so this could move forward, subject to
Mr. Miller's approval. Commissioner Wische seconded the
motion.
Clarification was requested by one of the Commissioners on
specifically ~~hat the stumbling block was and why they
weren't just bringing back applications for annexation. Mr.
Kilday referred to the three smaller parcels under the
current Plan. The interpretation was that if they were over
three acres, they would have submitted them as a Planned
Commercial Development District. They are under three acres
so they do not meet the minimum threshhold and were sub-
mitted as C-3 zoning district with specific development
plans. Mr. Kilday noted either way it would still have to
go through the same Public Hearings. They won't formally be
zoned Planned Commercial Districts. The question was that
that section under the City's special policies for different
properties of the Plan, when it said "should" or "shall",
did it mean every parcel in there had to be a PCD. If so,
his parcels couldn't meet the requirements.
A vote was called on
motion carried 5-0.
annexation will take
the motion currently on the floor.
It was mentioned that the rezoning
place simultaneously.
The
and
The Mayor declared a brief recess at 8:20 P.M. The meeting
resumed at 8:30 P.M.
3