LEGAL APPROVAL
o~Jf
II
il
!I
,.
I'
I'
I
ORDINANCE NO. 09 5 -~ ~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2404 SOUTH
FEDERAL HIGHWAY; AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-70
OF SAID CITY BY REZONING CERTAIN TRACTS
OF LAND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN FROM C-3 TO R-3 HIGH DENSITY;
AMENDING THE REVISED ZONING MAP
ACCORDINGLY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS,
SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Boynton
I
i Beach, Florida has adopted Ordinance No. 91-70, in which a
,
,
, Revised Zoning Map was adopted for said City; and
WHEREAS, the applicant
has heretofore filed a petition,
ii
I
: pursuant to Section 9 of Appendix A-Zoning, of the Code of
I
I' Ordinances, City of Boynton Beach, Florida, for the purpose of
rezoning a certain tract of land consisting of 1.45 acres,
I
I said land being more particularly described hereinafter, from
i C-3 TO R-3 High Density;
,
I
I
I
I
i interests of the inhabitants of said City to amend the
WHEREAS,
the City Commission deems it
in the best
aforesaid Revised Zoning Map as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1: The following described land, located in the
City of Boynton Beach, Florida, to-wit:
I'
II
il
:1
I.
II
I
I'
'I
1
1
Section 33, Range 43 East Township 45,
South northerly 184.46 feet of the
westerly 334.48 feet of the East 1/2
of the Southeast 1/3, lying East of
Federal Highway, in accordance with the
Office of the clerk of the Circuit Court,
in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida, Public Records of Palm Beach
County, Florida, Palm Beach County
Control No: 08-43-45-33-00-000-5150,
Census Tract Number 83.
be and the same is hereby rezoned from C-3 to R-3 High
Density. A location map is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
made a part of this Ordinance.
Section 2: That the aforesaid Revised zoning Map of the
City shall be amended accordingly.
Sect i on 3:
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
)~
\
Se"t ion 4,
Should any section or provision of this
Ordinance or any portion thereof be declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the remainder of this Ordinance.
Se"tion S'
This Ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon passage.
FIRST READING this ~-
day of Jf.Pff/J1..0E1C". ,1995.
SECOND, FINAL READING and PASSAGE this
-$-1"'7l:/J?.t?J6't'? , 1995.
/'?
day of
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
4-#'Yrx:
Mayor
\~,
\,d
\ ,_-
Vice Mayor
...,.--
-.....:
~; -P;o
-!~~bU~
Tern
I
i'
'-:.-G.-t /C.,_-
"
i
, ATTEST:
G/Jim's.Rezoning
8/30/95
VI.
PUBLIC HEARING
D
cc:
;J
.~\
<:k U) OV
\ l\v \
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPART
MEMORANDUM NO, 95-273
Plan, Dev
Agenda Memorandum for
June 20, 1995 city Commission Meeting
TO:
Carrie Parker
city Manager
FROM:
Tambri J. Heyden
Planning and Zoning Director
DATE:
June 14, 1995
SUBJECT: 2404 S. Federal Highway-LUAR #95-003, CPTA #95-001
Request for Land Use Amendment/Rezoning and Text
Amendment
Please place the above-referenced request on the June 20, 1995 City
Commission agenda under Public Hearings.
DESCRIPTION: This is a request to amend the future land use map of
the comprehensive plan from Local Retail Commercial to Special High
Density Residential, to rezone from C-3, community Commercial to R-
3, MUlti-family Residential, and amend the text of the Coastal
Management Support Document, Table #24 by changing the acreage of
the special High Density area from 9.9 acres to 11.35 acres for
1.45 acres located on the east side of South Federal Highway
(2404), currently occupied by Gentleman Jim's restaurant.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Development Board, with a 6-1
vote, recommended approval of this request.
TJH:dim
Attachment
.: CCAII_I1N. .l.O
-,
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-240
THRU:
Chairman a~d~mbers, Planning and Development
f_ .,{A. (J ,p..,.;
T~:--KeYd ,Planning and Zoning Director
Board
TO:
FROM:
Michael W. Rumpf, Senior Planner
DATE:
June 8, 1995
SUBJECT: 2404 S. Federal Highway - LUAR #95-003, CPTA #95-001
Request for Land Use Amendment/Rezoning and Text Amendment
INTRODUCTION {iA.. :;;f-J:ztP; rfe.... ;u-.r~;'J f-., /:, -foi:: f-
Joseph G. Salamone, Executive Vice President of Bravo Boynton, Inc., a ~~
Florida partnership and contract purchaser, is requesting that 1.45
acres of property located on the east side of S. Federal Highway
(currently occupied by Gentleman Jim's Restaurant), directly opposite
S.E. 23rd Avenue be rezoned and that the Future Land Use Plan
designation be amended (see location map in Attachment "A"). The
current land use and zoning on this property is Local Re~a!~~~ ;'+"'~f);'
Commercial and C-3 (Community commercial), respectively~~ prepare ~,
this property to be assembled with the adjacent property to the east w~_/
and devel with condominiums, the applicant is requesting that the ~~
property e eclassif to Special High Density (permitted maximum of' ~~
20 dwelling its er. re), ..e,nd rezonft/4 to R-3, Multi-family n;:... ~
Residential. ctod\iection witll the expansion of the Special ,*~1
High Density (SH) area, 'l'abJ.ajl2_4-1ti,te Specific Future Land Use and 1!G:z.~
Design Considerations-within the ~~anagement Support Document ~~~~
is to be amended to show the acreage for the~ea (Map Area #16) ~b~
increased by the 1.45 acres. Table #24 describes rea delineated ~
for SH and special development regulations intended to bo reserve ~~
the site's environmentally sensitive features and to mitigate a ~~
potential impacts generated by development at this higher density. In .~
brief, the applicant requests these changes to accommodate an overall -
residential development through replacement of the less demanded/
valued commercial use, and application of the special maximum density
provision of 20 dwelling units per acre to offset the site specific
development restrictions as required of development within the SH
district pursuant to Table #24, Coastal Management support Document
(as adopted by Policy 7.9.6). The specific design considerations
include a 150 feet shoreline setback, and southern setbacks which
increase with building height (e.g. 1 & 2 levels-40 feet; 3 levels-75;
and 4 levels-100 feet).
with respect to the text amendment, this amendment is only necessary
to properly maintain the Comprehensive Plan, and specifically, the
description of Map Area #16 which delineates an area immediately to
the north and east of the subject property. Table #24, Site Specific
Future Land Use and Design Considerations, of the Coastal Management
support Document was adopted into the Plan by Policy 7.9.6, and in
part, describes the size of the area that the Special High Density
classification and design recommendations apply to (see map and Table
#24 within Attachment "B"). Logically, if the SH area is expanded to
include the subject property, the corresponding recommendations should
apply to the new area, and Table #24 should be revised to accurately
describe the property within Map Area #16.
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS
A plan amendment may follow an abbreviated review schedule as
established by the Florida Department of Community Affairs if the
proposed amendment ~ffects less than 10 acres of property and does not
involve a land use classification with a density exceeding 10 units
per acre. Since the subject amendment involves a density of 20 units
per acre, the proposed map and text amendments are limited to the
standard review procedure which requires approximately 6 to 8 months
to complete.
Memo No. 95-240
-2-
June 8, 1995
{Ii
The following analysis is provided pursuant to the city's code of
ordinances (part III-Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Section
9), and Florida law with respect to the transmittal and review of land
use plan amendments. This analysis will focus primarily on
consistency with the City's comprehensive plan objectives, policies
and text, and compatibility of the proposed amendment with the
adjacent properties.
ADJACENT LAND USE AND ZONING tkV-- ~ ",A AL_",...r -Iv ~ ~~
The land use and zoning in the surroun~i~~~'~~~ies and is ~ - .
presented in the table below: . ~.
Direction ill Zon . ~
North Restaurant C-3 ~ &//
(John Case's Streb's Restaurant) A~,
--a<~
Northeas tras t
'.m... ",",",/South
Undeveloped
R-3
Multi-family condominiums
(Hampshire Gardens)
R-3
West ~I .. S. Federal Highway (U.S. 1)
/ _A~4--/d r:r-u(... K ~ d
{,I/G't/". artl1e~ -~est ' Mobil Service Station
<;;/" iY fltd;. 7AA-...... t ~ ,d~ k (:ff. .~ W(OJ, 7d. -
ANALYfils PURSUtr~TO "stc-:- Gte. 7 OF iClf?I2. -LA~r DEVEL6PM~" R~ uttT!ONs'1'r,/
This section 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 could result from development
of ~he propert are as fo~lows:
N/A
C-3
-<...4~ ,
7.a. "WHETH R THE PROPOSED REZONING WOUL BE
APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES...".
~(1 I,. I,l-.j~
Although the Future Land Use Plan is proposed to be amended, the
requests are generally consistent with comprehensive Plan objectives
and policies, in part, due to the compatibility of the proposed land
use classification with adjacent land uses, the availability of
service capacity, and due to the Comprehensive Plan's projected
surplus of commercial land. This consistency is described by the
following policies and narrative:
policv 1.3.3 - "...limit the type, intensity, extent and location
of land uses to those which the traffic generated by same can be
accommodated...without exceeding the levels of service set
forth.. ."
Policy 1.4.4 - ".. .limit the type, intensity, extent and location
of land uses to those which can be accommodated by the potable
water system..."
policv 1.4.5 - ".. .residential densities shall not be increased
above those which were assumed in projecting water demand in the
Potable Water Sub-Element unless it can be demonstrated that
capacity will be obtained by reducing the land use density or
intensity elsewhere..."
Policy 1.5.4 - ".. .limit the type, intensity, extent and location
of land uses to those which can be accommodated by the sanitary
sewer system..."
policv 1.5.5 - ".. . residential densities shall not be increased
above those which were assumed in projecting sewer flows in the
Potable Water Sub-Element unless it can be demonstrated that
capacity will be obtained by reducing the land use density or
intensity elsewhere..."
Memo No. 95-240
-3-
June 8, 1995
J k'
Logically, the evaluation rvice capacity is of particular
importance when consideri g the expanded application of a special high
density area which was not included in the original data and analysis
of the comprehensive Plan. Analyses on the availability of traffic
and utility facilities have been conducted, which compare service
demands of the current restaurant use with a condominium project (it
should be noted that the utility analysis evaluates the potential
development scenario on the subject property of approximately 20
dwelling units, while the traffic analysis was conducted for a maximum
70-unit condominium project to occupy the entire site to be assembled
from the subject property and the undeveloped property to the east.
The analyses indicate that traffic would be reduced by the proposed
amendment, demand for sanitary sewer would increase slightly, and
capacity exists to serve the increased potable water demands of the
~ project. j) . ,1. -I - /J,_~..A
/vv-r;\.b- Mo- t vr-~ /J" ~pro<<--V - $' )
With respect to.t~e "reduction of de~~~ or intensitY,else"h.E!.!:.~
reqUired~ Poll."'"'' 1.4.5 and 1.5.5, th.!_ll...~clJ..ll.sJ.rn"nt-l.sno1:-necessary
given th the proposed increase in facility demands are low and can
be easily accommodated by existing supplies.
Policy 1.12.1 - Onotify and solicit the comments of the Palm
Beach county Division of Emergency Management and the city's
Management Officer, prior to approving any increase in
residential densities in the Hurricane Evacuation Zone above
maximum densities allowed in the Coastal Management Element,
the proposed density increase would result in an increase of
or more dwellings."
Risk
the
if
50
Policy 1.12.1 is not applicable as the proposed amendmentsrrepresentS"a
maximum possible increase of 29 dwellings (1.45 acres * 20 dwelling
per acre maximum permitted density) above that considered by the
Future Land Use and Coastal Management Elements. The notification
requirements of Policy 1.12.1 are required when 50 dwellings or more
above that recommended by the Comprehensive Plan are approved.
policv 1.9.1 - "Implement the land use and redevelopment
policies contained within the coastal Management Element."
policv 1.13.3 - "Encourage infill development and
redevelopment by adopting and implementing the policies
contained in the Coastal Management Element."
A SH classification was created and recommended by the Comprehensive
Plan to encourage development/redevelopment of the remaining 9.9 acres
of undeveloped, coastal area land in this vicinity (see page 49,
Future Land Use support Document in Attachment "C"). To mitigate
potential effects of this higher density, the special setbacks, which
increase with building height would apply to these sites if developed
at this higher density. The applicant plans to utilize the special
density provision currently applying to the adjacent property, and is
requesting that this SH classification be extended to the subject
property. Along with the special density provision, the site specific
development considerations would also apply to the subject property if
expansion of the overlay zone is approved. The applicant desires to
incorporate the site specific design considerations onto both the area
they currently apply to, and the subject property.
Policv 1.19.6 - ".. .do not allow commercial acreage which is
greater than the demand which has been projected, ..."
/Z~'/AAf(j~_ "In areas where demand for commercial uses will
-a---' not increase, particularly in the Coastal Area, subsequent to
Pla~ ado?tion ;hange the land,use and zoning to permi~ only h J
resl.dentl.al. . . I~~ ~~ (It. ~. {YIA..R\.
The replacement of this commercial use with a residential
classification is indirectly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,
as the data and analysis projects that land for retail uses will have
Memo No. 95-240
-4-
June 8, 1995
the highest surplus compared to other commercial uses, and the plan
recommends, where appropriate, the replacement of commercial uses with
residential uses.
.
The Future Land Use support Document projects that approximately 142
acres of surplus land will exist for retail uses at build-out.
Although this projection was adjusted, in part, in anticipation of it
being "absorbed by an increase in per capita income", which therefore
increased the base demand figure, it still may underestimate the
ultimate surplus given the following Plan amendments which occurred
subsequent to plan adoption: a) the conversion of nearly 30 acres to
commercial use for the Boynton Beach Boulevard and the Knuth Road
Planned Commercial Developments; b) the denial of amending 11 acres
along a segment of Boynton Beach Boulevard from Local Retail
Commercial to Office Commercial as recommended by the Plan; and c) the
amendment of the 30-acre, Hunter's Run commercial tract to Local
Retail Commercial land use. As a result of these amendments, the
prOjected 142 acre surplus should be increased to nearly 213 acres of
land designated for retail uses.
Lastly, to further encourage development/redevelopment of coastal
properties, Policy 1.19.7 recommends that selected commercial sites
within the coastal area be amended to residential use contingent upon
a "demand for commercial use which will not increase". Staff has not
evaluated commercial demand within this area (e.g. by examining
commercial vacancies, business turnover, or vacant land), but given
the proximity of the subject property to vacant waterfront land
designated for a maximum density nearly double that permitted in the
High Density Residential classification, and the proximity of this
commercial use with the nearest major commercial activity center (i.e.
Woolbright Road and U.s. I), it is arguable that the demand for
residential use of this property may exceed the demand for, or value
of commercial use. It should also be noted that the comprehensive
plan recommends that ideally, commercial uses should be concentrated
at or nearby thoroughfare intersections.
.-7
The following additional objectives, policies, and issues addressed
below are either typically referenced by the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (~CA), or required by them to be analyzed in the
review of proposed amendments:
obiective 1.2 - "Coordinate future land uses with soil conditions
so that urban land uses are prohibited in locations where it is
not economical to remove or treat unsuitable soils..."; and.
policv 1.2.1 - ".. .prohibit development of urban land uses where
the removal or treatment of unsuitable soils would be
uneconomical, prOVide that unstable soils shall be removed in all
construction and land development sites where soils would affect
the performance of infrastructure, drainage...".
No extreme soil conditions are known to be characteristic of this
property which is already developed. Furthermore, policies such as
those above will ensure the use of proper development techniques.
Obiective 4.4 - "The City shall,...protect all remaining areas of
substantial native upland and wetland vegetation and eliminate
undesirable exotic tree species.";
policv 1.11.14 - ".. .provide for open space preservation by
reqUiring the preservation of 25% of all oA", "B", and "CO rated
sites...".
There are no environmentally sensitive features on the subject
property; however, the existence of mangroves on and near the property
to the east will warrant appropriate management techniques and
permits. staff has already surveyed the current condition of the site
to the east, and assisted the applicant with mangrove and exotic tree
identification.
Memo No. 95-240
-5-
June 8, 1995
Obiective 1.11 - ".. . future land uses shall include provisions
for the protection of...archaeological resources and historic
buildings...".
The City's Comprehensive Plan requires that historical resources and
arc~aeological sites be preserved and protected. However, the
subJect property is developed and, there are no archaeological
J? ~eg~~1es~nown to exist o~e remainde~f the site to the east.
lt~J 7~~R~gtD REZO~D 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 THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC WELFARE.; AND
7. e. "WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE COMPATIBili'ITH CURRENT
AND FUTURE USE OF ADJACENT AND NEARBY PROPERTIES, OR ~~~~D AFFECT THE
PROPERTY VALUES OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.".
with respect to reclassification of the subject property, the proposed
conversion to residential land use and zoning represents a slight
deintensification of the property compared to the current commercial
use, as traffic generation is projected to decrease (only water demand
is anticipated to significantly increase which is not an impact which
directly affects adjacent or nearby properties similar to traffic).
Secondly, the proposed classification is a similar classification to,
or has a similar density of that on all abutting properties except for
the parcel to the north which remains designated for commercial use
(John Case's Strebs Restaurant). As for the compatibility (with
adjacent uses) of the proposed SH classification being extended to the
subject property, the special design considerations that accompany
this area are intended to offset the potential impacts generated by
the higher density that would be experienced by adjacent properties
(namely Hampshire Gardens). As indicated above, based on the number
of stories ultimately approved for this site, the southern setback
would vary between 40 feet (the standard minimum setback for the R-3
zoning district) for one (1) or two (2) stories to 100 feet for four
(4) stories.
Furthermore, residential use is a more compatible elassification with
the adjacent residential area than the existing commercial
classification, The SH district applied to the subject property would
allow a maximum of 15 dwellings more than would be allowed by the
conventional maximum density of 10.8 dwellings per acre. Lastly, it
should be noted that the relatively higher densities greatly vary
along the City's coastal area, ranging between 18.8 dwellings per acre
to 45 dwellings per acre, and the actual gross density of the adjacent
Hampshire Gardens Cooperative is 22 dwellings per acre. .~ f IL 1 ~
7.c. "WHETHER CHANGED OR CHANGING CONDITIONS MAKE THE PROPOSED (j
REZONING DESIRABLE."
As indicated above and based on the request to rezone the existing
restaurant, the commercial value of this property may be declining.
Lastly, although Policy 1.19.7 suggests the conversion of applicable
commercial properties within the coastal area, the Plan may not have
considered the conversion of the Gentleman Jim's property to
residential use as is necessary to provide needed access to the
waterfront parcel, which has a limited 25 feet of frontage on Federal
Highway.
7.d. "WHETHER THE PROPOSED REZONING WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH UTILITY
SYSTEMS, ROADWAYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES."
Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 9J-11 also requires that the
availability of public facilities be analyzed in connection with a
proposed amendment to a comprehensive plan, and that the maximum
potential demand upon public facilities be determined. The following
facilities were analyzed in order to ensure that capacity is
available:
Memo No. 95-240
-6-
June 8, 1995
1) Roads: The traffic statement was analyzed by the County who
confirmed that the entire project would represent a reduction of total
generated trips and therefore demand on the immediate roadway network;
2) Water/Sewer: The city's Utility Department reviewed the
amendment and indicated that water and sewer capacities are
to serve the maximum demands to be generated on this site.
demand for sanitary sewer facilities will remain relatively
the demand for potable water is projected to increase from
approximately 129,000 gallons per month to 258,000 gallons per month.
This review also indicated that residential development will require
that fire (water) flow requirements be brought to current standards,
which may require off-site improvements at the developer's expense. It
is recommended that a fire flow test be conducted in order to
determine the current available fire flow to the site;
proposed
available
While the
unchanged,
3) Solid Waste: The Solid Waste Authority reviewed this request and
does not object to the proposed amendment as ample capacity exists to
serve the future solid waste collection and disposal needs generated
on this site. This limited, non-quantitative review by the Solid
Waste Authority is provideq through a standard letter that they
request be used for facility review until subsequent notice is
received from them;
4) Drainage: An analysis of drainage facilities was not conducted;
however, ultimate development of the site must comply with both
drainage requirements within the Plan as well as those imposed by the
appropriate district/authority; and
5) Recreation: Extension of the SH classification represents an
increase of 29 dwelling units above that considered in the
Comprehensive plan, which equates to an estimated 45 persons, or 29
units multiplied by 1.53 persons per unit (1.53 is the average persons
per household in this census tract, 1990 census).
a) NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS - Neighborhood park levels of service will
likely be met on site given the anticipated age of the future
residents, and the minimum facilities to be included in the
project. As with nearly all comparable coastal area
developments, at a minimum, on site recreation facilities will
likely include open space, a swimming pool and dock facilities.
Furthermore, a recreation impact fee will now be collected at the
site plan review stage rather than during plat review, which will
contribute to the construction/improvement of recreation
resources which serve this area. With respect to the collection
of land or money in lieu of, with the close proximity of Jaycee
Park, and the proximity to U.S. 1, this site is not ideal for a
small neighborhood park, but rather money should be collected in
lieu of land which could be possibly contribute to improvements
to Jaycee Park.
b) DISTRICT PARKS - Regarding the district park level of service
capacity, the surplus of district park space was calculated at
over 13 acres on July 6, 1994. According to the level of service
standard for district parks, 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons, this
13.76 acres will serve an additional 5,504 residents. It should
be noted that the City, at most, has grown by approximately 600
to 900 nprRons since conducting this previous analysis.
c) RECREATION FACILITIES - As of July 6, 1994 four of the
eighteen categories of facilities had the minimum number of units
as required by the corresponding level of service standards.
However, these facility categories include single facilities
which serve large population groups such as practice fields (1
field per 10,000 persons) youth baseball/softball fields (1 field
per 17,500 persons), and regulation baseball fields (I field per
35,000 persons). All other facilities have surpluses ranging
between 2 (shuffleboard courts) and 10 (racquetball courts)
units/facilities.
1rJfi ~
Memo No. 95-240
-7-
June 8, 1995
7.f. "WHETHER THE PROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY DEVELOPABLE
UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING.";
With respect to residential conversion of the subject property, since
the property is already developed there are not likely any unique
physical constraints which would limit redevelopment. As for economic
feasibility, the subject property is not undevelopable as currently
zoned and classified. However, as indicated in this report, there may
currently be factors which create greater demand for residential use
than commercial use of this property, particularly given the
availability of land for assemblage which facilitates waterfront
development. With respect to extension of the SH area, rather than
the application of the conventional High Density Residential
classification, the applicant indicates that a density in between 10.8
dwellings per acre and the maximum for the SH classification (20
dwellings per acre), is necessary given the application of the
restrictive setbacks on the parcel to the east. Although staff is
unable to confirm the potential economic necessit~~S
classification on the subject property, it is pos~ a the plan
assumed the planned development of the entire arg~, esignated for the
new SH classification. This assumption would be consistent with
general comprehensive plan policies that encourage land assemblage as
it prevents isolated uses and conserves natural and man-made
resources. Also, more efficient infrastructure can be designed for
assembled parcels as compared to small parcels developed ~or st .
alotle ltses th'};..fann~benefit frym ~pared i}npI;ovementsj ~ ~ -. ....L~
ht..li.t~ .;l-S~ Pf. """-dd.~.~,'.sM"""'~~ ~ .
7. g. "WHETHER THE P POSED REZONING IS OF A SCALE WHICH IS REASONABLY w:.. '
RELATED TO THE NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE." ~~
Criteria for evaluating the relationship between the proposed ~~~
amendments and development related to the needs of the neighborhood ~~
and the City include service demands, density, use, value, and ~~.
accomplishment of, and consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies. ~~~
As indicated above, ample capacity exists to serve the maximum ~~
potential service needs of this proposed project, the maximum density ~~
is less than that of the adjacent Hampshire Gardens Cooperative. and ~ ~
midway between the densities existing on larger coastal area ~
developments within the City. The requests would comply with the -~l
intent of the Comprehensive Plan through the residential development l,
of this coastal area and the preservation of the waterfront, ~
mangroves, and adjacent property values (through application of the
more stringent design standards). As already indicated, extension of
the SH area would allow for the addition of 29 dwelling units beyond
that recommended by the plan (based on the current 9.9 acres
designated for SH), and an increase of only 13 dwelling units above
that if the subject property were developed for multi-family housing
in accordance with the C-3, Community Commercial district or with the
High Density Residential classification and R-3, Multi-family
Residential district (both limit maximum density to 10.8 dwellings per
acre) .
7.h. "WHETHER THERE ARE ADEQUATE SITES ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY FOR THE
PROPOSED USE, IN DISTRICTS WHERE SUCH USE IS ALREADY ALLOWED."
It should be noted that the C-3, Community Commercial zoning district
permits multi-family uses limited to 10.8 dwellings per acre; however,
staff typically recommends that a residential use utilize the
appropriate residential zoning district, and that a single parcel be
unified under one classification and zoning district.
With respect to alternative locations, there are certainly other sites
which would allow condominium development, including those zoned C-3,
community Commercial, R-3, High Density Residential, central Business
District, and the newly created MX or Mixed Use district (which allows
a maximum density of 40 dwellings per acre). However, although there
are likely vacant or partially vacant properties within appropriate
districts, these areas may not include waterfront properties, would
require greater land assemblage, and would lack direct visibility from
U. S. 1.
Memo No. 95-240
/0 i3tdu ~.
June 8, 1995
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Department recommends that the applications
submitted by Joseph G. Salamone for High Density Residential land use,
extension of the special High Density overlay district, and R-3 (High
Density Residential) zoning be approved, based on the following:
1. The proposed amendments and zoning would be consistent with
Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies;
2. The proposed amendments would not be contrary to the established
land use pattern, nor would they create an isolated district
unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts, and nor would it
constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual property
owner;
3. The requested land use and zoning would be compatible with
capacities of utility systems, roadways, and other public
facilities;
4. The proposed land use and zoning would be compatible with the
current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties and,
would not affect the property values of adjacent or nearby
properties;
5. The proposed land use and zoning are of a scale which is
reasonably related to the needs of the neighborhood and the city
as a whole; and
6 .
The-expaUl>J.Vll v[ tae 8dj"",..nt ~peeial KJ.yh lJensity classification
onto the subject property is consistent with encouraging
development of property under one unified classification and
zoning district.
//
a:Ctr(Li~
ar7/!4f7~
MI.CVIII:Z.O....,
II I"
ATTACHMENT
"A"
LOCATION MAP
."-1-
AV .
,
,
,
I
I
r ,"."~I"
, II
, ~
, J
t ~"".
. e,
I
I
I
I
,
I :
. J
.
.
SITE
I.
(1 OF 2)
(1)
rr
, I
, I
, I
. I
I!
"
, ,
I I
. .
, ,
. I
"
, ,
, I
, ,
. I
, I
. " ,
. I'
i ' :' ., I
. I .' " I
. I, '>."
. . . ':!(' I ,
i :' ,sJ:
. ., ;:..',
. , 'cr' ,
: :II~":
. . I I I',
: 1 1 :s:" I
. .' IS,',
. " ,~,',
. ,
: : I '-II, I
.,'g"I
, I 1,.-,. I
','(1,)' ,
t ~"'" I
I 8~" I.
I" ,
, I I .
-I ',gd '
::" ,"
,:" .,
,. I, I
,J !:z., ,
: 1'-":
...
: :I
--, ~~.J
", ' .
", '
:; : Cleo" ......
I" a
" I
,:i :- _I
I, .
" ,
" ,
': I
I,
"
p.....
~
(j)
e-9!l
PlANtlN() llEP,
t- . 400'
ATTACHMENT "A" (2 OF 2)
LOCATION MAP (2)
(SPECIAL HIGH DENSITY)
II
I ,oo-
-c::::::r .
211t
.-.
AVE.
,
,
I
,
,
I
,e
I :
, J
t . e. :11""
,
,
I,
I
I
I :
. J
.
;17"
~"" ~... .., Q.IJ..
...,~
SITE
\
n-
, I
. ,
I'
. ,
If
I '
. I
II
"
ff! ~UIIIlJIIIIEj
ii!:J~-' -.
, I .
I . .
I' : :- ~
': ' :
" , IIIITHMAIlY (..."
" ,
': ,
,. I
,I
I.
. ,
. ,
. ,
. ,
"
I I
I'
, ,
" ,
, '
. : t ,',
I.' "/
. . ,,-"
"'~"
" :g./,
:,'SI'
" '",..,,':
, . 'jjj'
. ".~,":
: , I I" I
.' I I',
.,' I',
J,. ....,J.,',
e .
, . '::(', , .
, , .r-" .
I, .(1,)' I
, '~'"
,. '"
" ,
, 0' ,
..,: ,!,
::"~,,,
.1', "
,- ",
,t 1;Z" I
: 1'-":
'..
: :;
jU!'wlimmm!li
11.1", ,..,,,,,:11
10<"""11::,,,"""
11-:......1........+....
I
.
@>
(j)
5-lIlI
I'tAHHlNO lJEP,
'..<<10'
.
..
"
~
~
..
'"
~
o
V
"
..
:l
Q
'"
c:
..
!l\
;::>
'"
"
..
...l
..
..
"
:;
...
"
c
U
..
...
ell
:I
<ii
~
'"
=..
0"
...-
o c:
.. CO
...N
..
- "
..-
-"
.. 0
IrlN
..
1;;;
a ~
"'''
0-
.. "
......
..
:<i
~
~-
:I t:
.. ..
<:;l
..
]...a.
.. .. ..
...l;::>:I:
ATTACHMENT "B"
(1 OF 3)
TABLE #24, PAGE
(COASTAL MANAGEMENT
77
ELEMENT)
~ .8;;; '" 1 !l 6 II "S '" l'l .~ i- :J' N ;: 'E:J' ~ 3 II II ~ ~ -Ii' .51
~011 1 : I]!l~ J1J ~ ~iJ "Si!~ 1~~lJ
~,~t ~ : ~~"~ ~u ~ ~u .~.~_o ~~~~g
-" u ~ -0 U U Cf) C g Oe" .0 tIG .s .5 _ u e z: -!a 'It; e u I:Q
u_ M ~ .- c 0= ~~ ~ >
o~"J b b .._e~~"a~ b .._0 ~ei . 1",,1
u g,.D ~ ~ = .! -5'- t: ] U :s ~ A" - ~ .. ::I J5 '0 'i -a 0 :!
~-s~g - - j~li8l;111 ~ ~~:J'~ ]];8 1~11~
o..g'~.~ ~ 3 t15~'iii.s~ ~ '5 =o'E~.fi=]'- ;....c..-o&s
~~~5 ~ ~ e8~~Oh3Q. ..~ u-2-~.-~~~ ~l!.k~~
o~tIGo.. '2"S Uu -ucE ~~; t1GM u~i! ,,! -Ii 0 ~
c 0 ~ ~ :I :I .g Q 8" 5 a '0 u e tlO ClO .8 e 02 :I ~ u d .- :I ~ u "8 ~
g .S~ ~ ~ e; oW ft a:-s.~ ~ ; '; ]] 'fj ~ 8.'~ ~.2 ~ ~ t e ! l5 8'g DO
i~il; "S "S ~~~1l18.8.8 SS~ ~~J~"'bNtl ~~-~~
fr..._"'.8~ .c .c t..cg~l!-3 CC'" ~~..-d;~o"o !ll~~"
~",- "" ."0 c~-- c: -..C:"'< .c --c"'l
"'C~ ~ ~ "--0"e"5 ~~.. ....~;::> .".. ;;;~oli
C:.._~ ;;; ;;; b~~5"'" - oo~ t~c: = "1'" too~-
ill u ._ -.;t _ 0 U U .- If'l 0 - - ";;;I . - u - 1J.o; U u.. U 0..
uu.ca >. ~ fJ)Q..-oSd..:c.. tIIM::I?'--o:j')(O-o.2 _- 2...c::lo..
:>.u~ () (5 "O"'_€ Uee.....:.. NMi~s::~ua!!~!I"" o.ItII.~ow;u
~1tII~._ ow; ~ ~~e"2~e' ooc~~e~~U~~-'~ ~ u~cu~
O-en ~u~-~::Ig --0..,. QQe.-o d eo~
= ...= ~ N M 1: "ii " =:; . ~ ~ u .-= .':: ~~:2 0..] : e ill !f >. U d.!:!
; .&:; e . 0 0 .~?. M :; ~ ~ :J vi e e E !... ~C a .g .cell ~ ~e e )1 ~ ~ .5 .- :is
.8 -uc- - u- ~~ ~u .-.-u .- 0- - ~~ H e=
~.c-5~.,:: :::: ..c::;;g.o...:~-'2 ....1...1e-85eu~eu.a~ ~~-;-.go..
-- c.o ::I 0. e e Q " >.. u ::I f<I'I u.I:; .. .. u _ - '0 - ~'::I C -.. c - ~
i~~~"S~~~ ~8!~g~:l~~))t~~~~e~",~ ~v ~~~~a
~ iii DOC 'w . ~ Q Joe ~ CI) 6 = 00 c 5 i ~ :.r ~.2 0 c ; .. u <:) :; a. e 5
~~~j'~~j~~~~l~~.~~.~~t~~;;:~~~]~~~~.f1~j~~'e
~~e"c~~~_g~~~~~~egeRu~-~.ri~3';I!~~~=~&
Q '" ';;:;; ';,- 5 - II . < ~ 5 _ l! is'i "il ~~.g Ii ~ Ii ~ ';::; 0"S i 0 II C ~ 0 ~ 'oo ;;
~ " if ~ -= i.:; ~ ~ N .:..: E = .c.. 5 =-= :;; :l ~ .- _ .!! - .. ~ <t ., 0'" ~ ::>-ll o~
~B~ cC5.5 IfUUUOItll ~E= . u~.. .- ~--~u~
~~.~g'-~' 19~5~~u:~~..c:~~~~..c:u'~1~e~.;~~tbJ] .....:..
~ ~.; 0 B t ..r t .....~ '0 g ~ a.~ -'s.. ~:E::f:.~ ~ ~ e--8 :; - ~.~.;; ~ ~ 2 "'" ItII Ii oS ~
5 - Q.: c - 5 - ; e.- 00 ~ ..0 U ~ , ::.I ::I " IS ~ as'j;i o.!! c ~ it ~ U 0 !:! "'0 - ::1"0
.t6ee8~~~I~~g~caiu~~~>;;N~e~l<k~1-su35~~j
a
~
-
..
..
..
'"
v;
C
o
V
;;
..
e
...
..
'ii
>
~
~
(ji
o
v
...
'";'
'"
'";'
~
M
.::
il
~
M..,..,
ct~ct
._<
<
-
~
-
M
V
M
'"
~
M
~
V
<
<
-
'"
-
000
c
c
-
~
c
c
-
'"
2
..J
~
e
e
o
v
il
~
old
.:!
II
...
ggg
II :Ill
~~'"
g
n
'"
g
g
II
~
.
..
~
ill
;::>
;;
..
..
..
"
v
~
>
~
o
:I:
'8
:I:
]
~
:I:
~
~ 5
~ ~
> >
;:
.
"
.
>
5
~
>
old
~
o
'" :I:
:.:-u
li5=-=
~~.g
>>:1:
l:>
~
..
..
.5
;:
.
U
"
>
00
.0
~
,..
oO
00-'"
"':r-,i<o:f
"!
-
~
-
N
<t
V'I
"',..00
M
-77-
Q-
v'
...'"
<:l
'C
;;;
Q
~
..
z
Q
'"
V
M
~~
v~
:I
'C
.
>
Q
><
~
~
'"
..
..
~
2
d.
~
o
v
Q
e
~
~
...l
j2
o :I
v",
l:>
~
..
..
,5
ell
.
~
l
a
..
..
~
g
'S
>
old
5
"
.
>
;J
5
Ii
>
!~
~ ~
>>
-0
viM
o
.,;
'"
.,;
..
..
,5
;;
<>
U
<t
::i
"'0
-
-
-
!:l
u
o<l;
......
:;J
Cl
o
N
o
8
(.:!
(.')
Z
o<l;
II:
U
..
Ul
~
U
o<l;
III
..,.
.....
><
I:Q
(.:!
Ul
o<l;
~
u
:z
H
..
..
..
..
...
Oi
c
'"
U
c
""
Oi
..
Q
...
C
II
..
..
:l
...
C
II
-l
..
..
:I
';
'"
...
c
..
..
a-
U>
~
on
...
..
..
'" c
a--
'" c
.. '"
o.N
or
c
--
.=lc
.. '"
:.IN
..
..
i:::>
.. ..
'" ..
a-:I
"'-
.. :I
0.:"
~
..
..
II
1-
ATTACHMENT
(2 OF 3)
"B"
TABLE #24, PAGE
(COASTAL MANAGEMENT
78
ELEMENT)
~
on
>.c~u ~
MOC~ E ~ u
g :,w.c u. ;; 0 -=
ut~_2 -5!!a. e.... C Q c-
c .. - .- .. ._ I .- II
""'oQ.. :I",..,M';" .c..:=I _ t) "_.c
c "-0. "'0" ... l!I c M-
__00 M~U._ ~ ~- 0 .- u>.
:l .~ Z 1l ..!! 'S'S ... ~ 00 ~ i""o3 .S:O~ M ~ .D
_c .~~~uD.~ '-5 ~~S ~~e ! uc
:; .g g.> .a 'C Q .. g. ~ Ii ';; ''ii i! ~ E:3 9 - - oj ~ .g
...'. Co,.".. .. ... 0 G .. N .- ;! .. a _ lit .. U 0 ..
u;lu...->. -~u -:I viSU - trd.,; '::.-.c
'"",<a- u girlS 'H" ~ .. lSalS=:3 6;;>ol!
~ . ;;.ll ~ 01 E -5 a-.lj N 8' .j..... 1 ~ -! ; '" 8.~ 15
.- .!l _ ::J 0. 1lI ~ .:; I'! .. .... D II .II ',!! e II
~ilw Cl .!lll ."~ .... ",.9'0:::'" '~a- '5
.. ~ :S ~ ~ ] - .~.~ ~ :~ .~ ~ ~ ii i .8 :! u "Q fi'i ~
"0. c" .. > 00:':'" _..: E 8 e u -.a :! ~.c
.. a.~ ... ~ 015. 8 8.2! ~:1 Ii .. 13 li .. u !!I " f- :0' u U
... >-.. Ii:; ::: - 00:::'- e" .. 0 t: ii .. .c II e 'S
.~ c ~ ~ S e'" -g e ~] 5 III >..: s~. 15 "e ~ ..8 ~ ~ 2 .!1
t: ~ .. u.: a,."'" .. ~ c _ _ !!'= -g !WI ...: tit "0 e ::I" "0.
O'M '0' .2 f'Q, ... .- U"O U 3 ~:; ..,g 1;'. :.: g v - -5 0 U 'ii a
u c ... u U '=' IlID C > U o;;J U ~ .. ..::I J! .c .- u
...:"Q S c. IlG ~ V'a'- - S .. .g.. 1lG;; c:; to) e u =' ~ ~ - ~ Sot e
.~ U' :t: ~ 0 -Ii - Q....... -= _ 8 ~ u .- Q.; = "Q ::::- IllI ~ .....c a. 0.
- ~._~~ E~M-uO.- , ~u--'~.~cnB; "~
~~~5~~~~=ol~JEi~g ~'"Qj~~!~gu ~~
'5 .);' 00 .< .~ >. b" "f.5 ~ II( ] ~ ~ 0 r-- ?:- -d !. IS '~E ~ i e G : ~ ] e.g,
...._~ n.~ .5.~c ..u"Q~._~ e"Q~~~ u_~
-~ 8 ;"O"C ~e e Q.u'B Q.=; 8.0,,::= ~c 0'", 0 0 ~ 10 E
-"'_uuu~.- ~~"Qu~ o~ _oouc_u -e'-
'5 8 CQ 0 e-;; ~.~ ~ e 'R ~].; =; a u ~~r:,.: .;f"2 s '5 5 ~ '2 ~ ~
~ ~ ~ugu>"O~ ~.I ~=c c CU"eUU 0._
.-. ~ _ tI'l UI e c :; ~ '- ~ u .- .- -'S ... U c" u!::l N 0.'-
C :c- H :lM:E Q...?;o'lii.!~:; a 6~ 5 it: 0 ~e ~~ g....~ ~>-~
U - 0 - ,:, C it: "0 b:'s C - DO u 0 N -.... N is N .. U - - >. ~ '.--
~~'i~:i~i5'~~~~'~~~~:3~~~i~~ll~I~'~i
"0 u e;:: "" .JlI:';; tlGs.Q U 3'; ~ ..: 'E 6 g.. u '; ~ >.'; o.~ u '- UI
U l'I .c.- u !( ~._ '.. u _._ _'_ :l u.!!'- :I: - :I: "E - :I: __ e C ~ _ .!! u
Me:; ~ Q. C .D S .. ~ DO"B ~ ;g 0 ~.~ E..2 ~ O'~ ~ 0 .,'s u ~ .~ DO 00 e
~ ~ a [~8 i s ~ ; ~ ~ e -8 ~ :& i! !! :( -8 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ -; ~ .2.~ .~ ~
..
c
."
..
'"
..
a
'il.
u
';:
;;
Q
~
..
z
U
.;:
;;
Q
'! ~
uz
.li
=
..
is
is
..
Z
u
'S
..
is
N is
, ..
"'z
..,
.::
en
..,
u
.., ..
u u
..,
~
N
U
..,
u
uu
--
zz
..,
<r(
-
!:!
z
..,
'"
Q
z
..,
0::
U
Z
..,
'"
!:!
z
..,
u
uu
--
zz
~
'"
..J
~
~
'"
-l
~
i'
en
~
..
..
'"
"'
..J
~
6
~
~
~d
o II
u'"
i'
en
~
M
..
'"
ii
~~
M M
.. ..
"''''
~
8
~
o
U
~
o
U
~
o
U
ill
:l
~
.~
....
:;
E
~
u
~
"
z
e
E
o
~
C
..
u
8
..:
":
N'"
~>d
'"
...
~
]
..
'iO
.s
..
~
]
..
'iO
c
.;;;
>0,.,
t~
;;
'g
~
8
~
u
..
>
..
'S '5
;g ;g
......
.s.s
B
u u
.. ..
>>
.. ..
~Do
.s c
..'-
..
'-'>0
li'C
u'-
.. ..
>::l!
..
..
::J
1l
..
i
-
c
..
..
..
:I
U
>0
C
.;;
'"
~
u
..
>
~
u
..
>
r-
,,;
'"
"''''
NO
'"
o
N
::l~
:q
.. '"
-
N
N
N
-78-
..,
,
'"
en
!:!
z
i'
en
~
M
..
'"
~
!
:;
E
oIil
u
'iO
c
c;;
M
'"
N
..
..
::J
!
~
..
-5
.~
'"
en
~u
~
::J
Q
~
~
~
DO
..
;;
u
>'Il
; :I
..:,...
9 ~
!l-
. ~.~
~ 'nti
u '0-8'5
u U.c.!!
u , :> OO~
~ g'Vi:E tIG
L:'- ~ _ c
.8 .. u .~ 'S
E g.!: II ::I
3..J ~~1lG
Z to) .. 0 C
II('~ e...:.s
u~u~c
~~<to)O
..s ~ WI 'f; e-
o.Q."~P
~~ ex 5
"':'.GOCfJu
I
..
iil
c
~
..
..
li
::l!
, "
. ........
.;
.5
..:
-
'"
~
'il
:.:
x
!l
;;
~
il
l!
5
en
SOURCE:"wa';er H, Keller Jr, Inc
May 1989
ATTACHMENT "B" (3 OF 3)
FIGURE #17
(COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT)
"""
Ii,
!iRl
i .'/ " ,- ""'.
i' '- \- ;"'"
I' ~;,
I!
I i I
, ,
I ' '/
f, -; II """..
nl\5/ L:::......
IL.: ~ I ---,
I 1. I! r ....,.... ,,,..
'~
,I L;"
H j I r;:,
li~
,
j Ii
C ii'
/ if
. 'I
. ,
Ii'
i '/'.''''''''
; il' f .lI..'"
H ,II..,,,;,,
. ; I.' .
I! Ii
, ! I'
I .
~ I.
. I
:/
"
; I
I . I
Hi: I
I : I
. . ,
, "
C ;: .
[jdH ! Ji
I. J. III
J i j
., Ii
;j
I
-- I T"OI'
I I IlI.I ITRE.ul
,
,
L !:
I'
=,:
_I ........
I /,..,
IIU I
, I I
,,~ ..........
, : I ! -'
__ I I -
U/i:L-'
I "
,:~
ifL:'"
: J
......,/ :r~
I .
c::::::::: I
1
""",fit'
oce..... 1II1Dtl
\
'C
PGR
,
H C/
h''''
" ...,
i
..,'''' .
C
,
, .-----... ... ..... ....-
;.....;'..
C
,,,,",,,
C
..,".,.
i
i
,
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
,
,
i
I
i
i
,
i
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
,_fit'
t"1N'l',lAft:ln
"
I
.,......
J
I
J
I
I
I
I
....'.
..,:....
'. " n~
",'.':.
"",'I
..,,"r
""..,
..... ..
\
\
I
i
i
i
I
I
,
i
I
/
i
I
i
i
I
i
I
f
I
i
,
I
I
f
i
i
.,
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
~
~
...
"
"
"
...
...
~
~
,
...
~
....""
......... ...:
- ............ .
. ..,........ ....
.......
r ..........- .
............,..
",... ........
_. ..... _, __ . .. ~ "" .., .....
':::':-./ ;'-:e:~.~' ~'~;:::: -...
. :.u....u. t411!rlt Site
.. ::;.:::; :.:;'.'-:.':~':..
- -- .".. -, .... .......
Fl'~ 17-FUfl.llE......,uSE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
:.-'0~_~'=:=-:':.::-:';-_:
__. _H _. ___
-_.--. ..-.. - .
-81-
g.U'I~ ,
'---:;,~
...-:''';'; 1lI
- ..- ,'-
". ~- '.
ATTACHMENT "C"
FUTURE LAND USE SUPPORT DOCUMENT, PAGE #49
There is one other portion of the Coastal Area in which commercial
redevelopment is desirable, The segment of U.S. 1 near the southern City
limit currently contains a significant number of vacant parcels, obsolete
buildings, and marginal commercial uses. In order to upgrade the
properties fronting on U.S. 1, the Coastal Management Element recommends
that the existing Local Retail land use category be maintained, rather
than permitting heavy commercial uses. Heavy commercial uses would be
limited to the parcels which front on Old Dixie Highway, In order to
absorb some of the commercial acreage along U,S. 1, the coastal
Management Element recommends that new car sales be allowed on the C-3
zoned property south of Old Dixie Highway, on parcels that have a minimum
area of 2 acres.
There are several parcels and areas where increased residential densities
are recommended, in order to encourage infill development, There are two
small parcels, of 1.6 acres and 1:2 acres, located on the north side of
Dimmick Road and at the end of Las palmas Avenue, where it is recommended
that the land use category be changed from Low Density (4.84 dwellings
per acre) to High Density Residential (10.8 dwellings per acre), These
density increases are contingent on limiting development to two-story
townhouses.
In order to encourage infill development south of Woolbright Road, the
coastal Management Element recommends that the density be increased on
the largest remaining vacant multiple-family parcels. currently, the
maximum residential density in the city is 10.8 dwellings per acre. The
Coastal Management Element recommends that a Special High Density land
use category be created, with a maximum density of 20 dwellings per acre.
The application of this land use category would be limited to the Coastal
Area, however. The parcel in question is located along the Intracoastal
Waterway and is partly occupied by mangroves. Although the mangroves are
protected by law, it would be possible for this density to be transferred
to the upland portions of this property. It is also recommended, in this
element, that residential densities of up to 40 dwellings per acre be
permitted in the CBD zoning district, and that this density be applied in
addition to the commercial intensity which is permitted in the CBD zoning
district.
Many of the existing multi-family projects in the Coastal Area exceed the
maximum density which is shown on the Future Land use Plan. The High
Density Residential category of the land use plan allows for densities up
to 10,8 dwellings per acre, whereas existing mUlti-family projects have
densities which range from 17 to 46 dwellings per acre. It is
recommended in the coastal Management Element as well as in this element
that the perpetuation of these projects at their existing densities be
permitted, for two reasons: First, because publiC facilities in the
coastal Area are sufficient to serve these densities; and second, because
classifying these densities as non-conforming makes it difficult for
potential buyers of these units to obt~in morta~ap.s. which creates a
hardship for the existing owners, who are often elderly persons with
moderate incomes. It is not desirable, however, for the City to create
higher-denSity land use categories to accommodate the existing density of
these projects, since it would then be possible for property owners in
other areas of the City to request the same density, Also, the large
49
x.
LEGAL
B,2, 3, 4
cc: Planning
Development
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMO~ ~
Cj'5-%~
Agenda Memorandum for
September 5, 1995 city Commission Meeting
TO:
Carrie Parker
City Manageljr t:
')?!,-_ t.. ~.~.
Tambri J. Heyen
Planning and Zoning Director
FROM:
DATE: August 29, 1995
SUBJECT: 2404 S. FEDERAL HIGHWAY OR GENTLEMAN JIM'S (LUAR 95-003)
ORDINANCES FOR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING
AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
Please place the above-referenced items on the september 5, 1995
City Commission meeting agenda under Legal - Ordinances, First
Reading.
DESCRIPTION: You will recall that 2404 S. Federal Highway
represents a request to change a 1.45-acre parcel, occupied by the
Gentleman Jim's Restaurant, from Local Retail Commercial and C-3
(Community Commercial) to the Special High Density Residential (SH)
classification and R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) zoning district.
You will also recall that the SH classification was created in the
Comprehensive Plan for 10 acres of vacant property located east of
U.S. 1, adjacent to the subject property, to encourage development/
redevelopment of the coastal area. The corresponding text
amendment is only needed to change the description (size) of the SH
area within Table #24 of the Coastal Management Support Document to
show the area enlarged by the size of the subject property (1.45
acres). This amendment and rezoning is a prerequisite to the
applicants plan of developing condominiums on property to be
assembled from the subject property and the adjacent waterfront
property to the east. These applications were originally
summarized within Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-
240.
On June 20, 1995 the City Commission approved for transmittal to
the Florida Department of community Affairs (DCA) the above-
referenced plan amendment. On August 14, 1995 the DCA completed
the first stage of their review of these amendments, which then
allows the City to adopt ordinances. Once adopted, the DCA will
conduct a review for "compliance" and issue a final determination
within 45 days.
RECOMMENDATION: staff recommends that these ordinances be
approved.
TJH:mr
Attachments
MI8e~:2tO.ORD8.AGM
f."~''''''''''_'''U<'''__''
'0' -,
1 'I i~""'~
~Jj S8'
5/0"'.'
..:I~)J
j
PLANNING AND J
ZmW-iG DE?T. -lJ..rru.....-
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-516
Agenda Memorandum for
September 19, 1995 City Commission Meeting
TO: Carrie Parker
City Manager
FROM: Tambri J. Heyden'-m1
Planning and Zoni~g Director
DATE: September 14, 1995
SUBJECT: 2404 S. FEDERAL HIGHWAY OR GENTLEMAN JIM'S (LUAR 95-003)
ORDINANCES FOR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING
AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
Please place the above-referenced items on the september 19, 1995
City Commission meeting agenda under Legal - ordinances, Second
Reading.
DESCRIPTION: You will recall that these applications, approved on
First Reading on september 5th, represent a request to change a
1.45-acre parcel, occupied by the Gentleman Jim's Restaurant, from
Local Retail Commercial and C-3 (Community commercial) to the
Special High Density Residential (SH) classification and R-3
(Multi-Family Residential) zoning district. The corresponding text
amendment is needed only to change the description (size) of the SH
area within Table #24 of the Coastal Management Support Document to
show the SH area enlarged by the size of the subject property (1.45
acres). These applications were originally summarized within
Planning and Zoning Department Memorandum No. 95-240.
Once adopted, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
will conduct a review of the plan and text amendments for
"compliance", and issue a final determination within 45 days.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that these ordinances be
approved.
TJH:mr
Attachments
K!SCX:24040RD2.ACM
ORDINANCE NO. 095-~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2404 SOUTH
FEDERAL HIGHWAY; AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-38
OF SAID CITY BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND
USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF
THE CITY BY ADOPTING THE PROPER LAND USE
OF CERTAIN PROPERTY, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED HEREINAFTER; SAID LAND
DESIGNATION IS BEING CHANGED FROM LOCAL
RETAIL COMMERCIAL TO SPECIAL HIGH
DENSITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS,
SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida has adopted a Comprehensive Future Land Use
Plan and as part of said Plan a Future Land Use Element by
. Ordinance No. 89-38 in accordance with the Local Government
. Comprehensive Planning Act; and
WHEREAS, the procedure for amendment of a Future Land
Use Element of a Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Chapter
163, Florida Statutes, has been followed; and
WHEREAS, after public hearing and study, the City
. Commission deems it in the best interest of the inhabitants of
said City to amend the aforesaid Element of the Comprehensive
Plan as adopted by the City herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
Sect] on 1: Ordinance No. 89-38 of the City is hereby
amended to reflect the following:
That the Future Land Use of the following described land
shall be designated as Special High Density.
Said land is
more particularly described as follows:
Section 33, Range 43 East Township 45,
South northerly 184.46 feet of the
westerly 334.48 feet of the East 1/2 of
the South east 1/3, lying East of Federal
Highway, in accordance with the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court, in and
for Palm Beach County, Florida, Public
Records of Palm Beach County, Florida,
Palm Beach County Control No. 08-43-45-
33-00-000-5150, Census Tract Number 83.
Section /.' That any maps adopted in accordance with the
Future Land Use Element of said Comprehensive Plan shall be
amended accordingly.
Section 3, All ordinances or parts of ordinances 1n
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
..
--
Ser.tion 4'
..,
Should any section or provision of this
. Ordinance or any portion thereof be declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not
. affect the remainder of this Ordinance.
Section 'i'
The effective date of this Ordinance shall
be: The date a final order is issued by the Department of
Community Affairs finding the amendment to be in compliance in
accordance with Chapter 163.3184, F.S.; or the date a final
order is issued by the Administration Commission finding the
amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Chapter
163_3184, F.S.
FIRST READING this
~ day of September, 1995.
SECOND, FINAL READING and PASSAGE this
....Pc""~4l€~ ,1995 .
/9 day of
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
4~Y7k-
Mayor
,-
~~ \ ^. - \
- ,~-
Vice Mayor .~-
\4 pr~ Te1'~~
/ ,
~":_'-;':.~ L'-._": _
ATTEST:
C'<. [,/VAL/I--hr. ~/N _
Cit Clerk
(Corporate Seal)
G/Jim'slantwise
8/30/95
ORDINANCE NO. 095-J-+'
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2404 SOUTH
FEDERAL HIGHWAY; AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-70
OF SAID CITY BY REZONING CERTAIN TRACTS
OF LAND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
HEREIN FROM C-3 TO R-3 HIGH DENSITY;
AMENDING THE REVISED ZONING MAP
ACCORDINGLY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS,
SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida has adopted Ordinance No. 91-70, in which a
I'Revised Zoning Map was adopted for said City; and
"
WHEREAS, the applicant
has heretofore filed a Petition,
ij
,pursuant to Section 9 of Appendix A-Zoning, of the Code of
,I
ji Ordinances, City of Boynton Beach, Florida, for the purpose of
,
i
rezoning a certain tract of land consisting of 1.45 acres,
! said land being more particularly described hereinafter, from
C-3 TO R-3 High Density;
WHEREAS,
the City Commission deems it in the best
interests of the inhabitants of said City to amend the
aforesaid Revised Zoning Map as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1. The following described land, located in the
City of Boynton Beach, Florida, to-wit:
Section 33, Range 43 East Township 45,
South northerly 184.46 feet of the
westerly 334.48 feet of the East 1/2
of the Southeast 1/3, lying East of
Federal Highway, in accordance with the
Office of the clerk of the Circuit Court,
in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida, Public Records of Palm Beach
County, Florida, Palm Beach County
Control No: 08-43-45-33-00-000-5150,
Census Tract Number 83.
be and the same is hereby rezoned from C-3 to R-3 High
Density. A location map is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and
made a part of this Ordinance.
Section 2: That the aforesaid Revised Zoning Map of the
City shall be amended accordingly.
Sect; on 3.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
."
..
Sect ion 4:
Should any section or provision of this
Ordinance or any portion thereof be declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect the remainder of this Ordinance.
Section S'
This Ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon passage.
FIRST READING this ~-
day of .Ji.""ffrJlA:Pe/G ,1995.
SECOND, FINAL READING and PASSAGE this
.Jl:;P7i!!:/J?$E/? , 1995.
/'T
day of
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
A~'-Yr~
Mayor I
.. ...... ?
\",-, \J,__
Vice Mayor
--::
~; -P;o
4'~~ iZ~
Tern
.'
I'
I
ATTEST:
.~~~j~/~
Cl Clerk
; (Corporate Seal)
G/Jim's.Rezoning
8130/95
ORDINANCE NO. 095-~
'!
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA,
AMENDING TABLE #24 SITE SPECIFIC FUTURE
LAND USE AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS. AS
ADOPTED BY POLICY 7.9.6. OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BY AMENDING THE
DESCRIPTION FOR MAP AREA #16 TO REFLECT
AN INCREASE IN LAND CLASSIFIED AS SPECIAL
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL; PROVIDING FOR
CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
I
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Boynton
"Beach, Florida has adopted a comprehensive plan and as part of
said plan, Policy 7.9.6., by Ordinance 89-38 in accordance
with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act; and
WHEREAS, Table #24, as adopted by Policy 7.9.6. describes
area classified as Special High Density Residential Land
on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map; and
, the
: Use
,I
Ii
,I WHEREAS, Bravo Boynton, Inc., has filed an application
! for land use amendment to expand the Special High Density
Residential classification on their property; and
WHEREAS, Table #24 must be amended to show expansion of
the area designated Special High Density Residential by the
3.45 acres of property owned by Bravo Boynton, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, after public hearing and study, the City
Commission deems it in the best interest of the inhabitants of
said City to amend the text of the aforesaid Comprehensive
Plan as adopted by the City herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1: The aforesaid Table 24. Site Specific Future
Land Use and Design Considerations, of the Comprehensive Plan
is hereby amended to reflect the addition of 3.45 acres of
property.
Section 2: All ordinances or parts of ordinances 1n
conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
I
'I SE'>cti on 3: Should any section or provision of this
'. Ordinance or any portion thereof be declared by a court of
:1 competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not
:i affect the remainder of this Ordinance.
i
Section 4: The effective date of this amendment shall
be: The date a final order is issued by the Department of
Community Affairs finding the amendment to be in compliance in
accordance with Chapter 163.3184, F.S.; or the date a final
order is issued by the Administration Commission finding the
amendment to be in compliance in accordance with Chapter
163.3184, F.S.
FIRST READING this ..5'
day of ..::::5E.PTem73e'R
, 1995.
:,
i
.....
.....
o SECOND, FINAL READING and PASSAGE this /~ day of
UE~-~7f ' 1995.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
/7 ~/-~/~/
Mayor .
~~'\ ,\ -' \' --
vice Mayor ~ _.
~. ;r~ Te!', u1L--
\:..'t~~=-,--, -"
:1
,I
ATTEST:
, ~4/Y/V" 97t. Y:QdM.
Ci Clerk
(Corporate Seal)
:i
Text.AJnd.
8/31/95
Ii
I
1
.
,
.
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 5, 1995
F. Setting date and time for loint City Commission/Chamber of Commerce Workshop for
September 11, 1995, M 7:00 p.m., in the West Wing Conference Room
1 . Suggested topics for discussion:
There was a consensus of the Commission to hold this joint workshop meeting at 7:00 p.m. on September 11,
1995.
IX. lEGAL:
A. Ordinances. 2nd Rsding. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Proposed Ordinance No. 095.28 Re: land use Amendment - lake
Worth Christian School (Required document not submitted as yet)
...............................................................................................T ABLED
2. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-29 Re: Rezoning - Lake Worth
Christian School (Required document not submitted as yet)
................................................................................................T ABLED
,
City Manager Parker advised that lake Worth Christian School does not yet haW! the easement document signed.
She requested that these two Ordinances remain on the table.
3. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-31 Re: Expand membership of Board of
Adjustment to add three regular members ..................................TABlED
RECOMMEND TABLING UNTIL AFTER WORKSHOP MEETING
City Manager Parker requested that this Ordinance remain on the table until alter the workshop meeting.
B. Ordinances - 1st Reading:
1.
Proposed Ordinance No. 095-32
Re: Authorize amending Utility Deposits
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-32 by title only.
Motion
Mayor Pro Tern Matson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-32 on first reading. Vice Mayor Bradley
seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote which carried unanimously.
2.
Proposed Ordinance No. 095-33
Highway (Gentleman Jim's)
Re: land Use Amendment - 2404 S. Federal
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-33 by title only.
Motion
Mayor Pro Tern Matson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-33 on first reading. Commissioner
Jaskiewicz seconded the motion, City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote which carried unanimously.
26
r
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 5, 1995
Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. City Clerk 5ue Kruse polled the vote which carried unanimously.
3.
Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34
(Gentleman Jim's)
Re: Rezoning. 2404 5. Federal Highway
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34 by title only.
Motion
Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34 on first reading. Mayor Pro Tem
Matson seconded the motion. City Oerk Sue Kruse polled the vote which Glrried unanimously.
4. Proposed Onlinance No. 095-35 Re: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment-
2404 S. Federal Highway (Gentleman Jim's)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 by title only.
Motion
,
Vice Mayor Bradley moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 on first reading. Mayor Pro Tem Matson
seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote which carried unanimously.
5. Proposed OnIinance No. 095-36 Re: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment-
Table #24 {revise table to show correct maximum density for special high density
residential dassification as 20 units/acre}
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 by title only,
Motion
Mayor Pro Tem Matson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 on first reading. Commissioner
Rosen seconded the motion. City Clerk 5ue Kruse polled the vote which carried unanimously.
C. Resolutions:
1.
Proposed Resolution No. R95-144
Community Plan
Supporting the West Boynton
Re:
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Resolution No. R95-144 by title only,
Motion
Vice Mayor Bradley moved to table Proposed Resolution No. R95-144. Commissioner Rosen seconded the
motion which carried unanimously.
2. Proposed Resolution No. R95-124 Re: Request for surety release - Boynton
Lakes PlatS .................................................................TABLED
Motion
27
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
SEPTEMBER 5, 1995
Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote which carried unanimously.
3.
Proposed OnIinance No. 095-34
(Gentleman Jim's)
Re: Rezoning - 2404 S. Federal Highway
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34 by title only.
Motion
Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34 on first reading. Mayor Pro Tem
Matson seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote which carried unanimously.
4. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 Re: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment.
2404 S. Federal Highway (Gentleman Jim's)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 by title only.
Motion
,
Vice Mayor Bradley moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 on first reading. Mayor Pro Tem Matson
seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote which carried unanimously.
5. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 Re: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment.
Table #24 (revise table to show correct maximum density for special high density
residential dassification as 20 units/acre)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 by title only.
Motion
Mayor Pro Tem Matson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 on first reading. Commissioner
Rosen seconded the motion. City e1erl< Sue Kruse polled the vote which carried unanimously.
C. Resolutions:
1.
Proposed Resolution No. R95-144
Community Plan
Supporting the West Boynton
Re:
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Resolution No. R95-144 by title only.
Motion
Vice Mayor Bradley moved to table Proposed Resolution No. R95-144. Commissioner Rosen seconded the
motion which carried unanimously.
2. Proposed Resolution No. R95-124 Re: Request for surety release. Boynton
lakes Plat 5 .................................................................T ABlED
Motion
27
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, flORIDA
1-
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Commissioner Rosen moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34 on second and final reading.
Vice Mayor Bradley seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote was 5-0.
7. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 Re: Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment - 2404 S, Federal Highway (Gentleman Jim's)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Commissioner Rosen moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 on second and final reading.
Vice Mayor Bradley seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote was 5-0.
8. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 Re: Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment - Table #24 (revise table to show correct maximum density for
special high density residential classification as 20 units/acre)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Vice Mayor Bradley moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 on second and final reading.
Commissioner Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote was
5-0.
B. Ordinances - 1st Reading:
None
C. Resolutions:
30
1. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-28 Re: Land Use Amendment - Lake Worth
Christian School (Required document not submitted as yet)
.....,..,..,...,.............,.,.. ....,........ .........,.. ......... .........,.. ........... ... ... T AB LE D
2. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-29 Re: Rezoning - Lake Worth Christian
School (Requirement document not submitted as yet).................T ABLED
These two Ordinances remained on the table.
3. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-31 Re: Expand membership of Board of
Adjustment to add three regular members ..................................T ABLED
RECOMMEND TABLING UNTIL AFTER WORKSHOP MEETING
This item was stricken from the agenda earlier in the meeting.
4
Prooosed Ordinance No. 095-32
Re: Authorize amending Utility Deposits
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, flORIDA
'W
..."
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
1. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-28 Re: land Use Amendment - lake Worth
Christian School (Required document not submitted as yet)
...,.......,.............,.....,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.. ... ... .....,......,........... .........,., ..... TAB lE D
2. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-29 Re: Rezoning. lake Worth Christian
School (Requirement document not submitted as yet).................TABlED
These two Ordinances remained on the table.
3. Proposed Ordinance No. 095.31 Re: Expand membership of Board of
Adjustment to add three regular members ..................................TABlED
RECOMMEND TABLING UNTIL AFTER WORKSHOP MEETING
This item was stricken from the agenda earlier in the meeting.
4.
Proposed Ordinance No. 095-32
Re: Authorize amending Utility Deposits
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-32 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Mayor Pro Tem Matson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-32 on second and final
reading. Commissioner Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The
vote was 5-0.
J. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-33 Re: land Use Amendment - 2404 S.
Federal Highway (Gentleman jim's)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-33 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-33 on second and final
reading. Commissioner Rosen seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote
was 5-0.
h
Prn.........L'^...In....:........"''''^ ~_I"'\Ol: 'III
0"", O^~,.......in.a _ 'J.:1.l"U..l:;.mJ;;od..ar....1 U;tThLV.::!.l.L..-
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, flORIDA
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK,
Motion
Commissioner Rosen moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34 on second and final reading.
Vice Mayor Bradley seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote was 5-0.
7. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 Re: Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment - 2404 S. Federal Highway (Gentleman Jim's)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 by title only.
uAvnR TAVI nR ANNnllNnn THF PllRllr HFARINr. THFRE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
r
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Commissioner Rosen moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34 on second and final reading.
Vice Mayor Bradley seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote was 5-0.
7. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 Re: Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment - 2404 S. Federal Highway (Gentleman Jim's)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Commissioner Rosen moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 on second and final reading.
Vice Mayor Bradley seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote was 5-0.
8. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 Re: Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment - Table #24 (revise table to show correct maximum density for
special high density residential classification as 20 units/acre)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Vice Mayor Bradley moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 on second and final reading.
Commissioner Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote was
5-0.
B. Ordinances - 1st Reading:
None
C. Resolutions:
30
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
~
....,
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
1. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-28 Re: Land Use Amendment - Lake Worth
Christian School (Required document not submitted as yet)
...,.,.,. ........................,.,.,.,.,.,.,....,.. .....,..,.... ............,.,....,...... ..... T AB LE D
2. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-29 Re: Rezoning - Lake Worth Christian
School (Requirement document not submitted as yetJ.................T ABLED
These two Ordinances remained on the table,
3. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-31 Re: Expand membership of Board of
Adjustment to add three regular members ..................................TABLED
RECOMMEND TABLING UNTIL AFTER WORKSHOP MEETING
This item was stricken from the agenda earlier in the meeting.
4.
Proposed Ordinance No. 095-32
Re: Authorize amending Utility Deposits
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-32 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Mayor Pro Tem Matson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-32 on second and final
reading. Commissioner jaskiewicz seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The
vote was 5-0.
5, Proposed Ordinance No. 095-33 Re: Land Use Amendment - 2404 S.
Federal Highway (Gentleman jim's)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-33 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-33 on second and final
reading. Commissioner Rosen seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote
was 5-0.
6.
Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34
(Gentleman jim's)
Re: Rezoning - 2404 S. Federal Highway
29
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, flORIDA
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
7-
L- U lrr<
1. Proposed Ordinance No. 095.28 Re: Land Use Amendment - Lake Worth
Christian School (Required document not submitted as yet)
.,.,.,., ..............,.,.,.,..,..........,........,.,..,....,............,.. ... ......... ........ TAB LE D
2. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-29 Re: Rezoning - Lake Worth Christian
School (Requirement document not submitted as yet).................TABLED
These two Ordinances remained on the table.
3. Proposed Ordinance No. 095.31 Re: Expand membership of Board of
Adjustment to add three regular members ..................................T ABLED
RECOMMEND TABLING UNTIL AFTER WORKSHOP MEETING
This item was stricken from the agenda earlier in the meeting.
4.
Proposed Ordinance No. 095-32
Re: Authorize amending Utility Deposits
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-32 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Mayor Pro Tem Matson moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-32 on second and final
reading. Commissioner Jaskiewicz seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The
vote was 5-0.
5. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-33 Re: Land Use Amendment - 2404 S.
Federal Highway (Gentleman Jim's)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-33 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-33 on second and final
reading. Commissioner Rosen seconded the motion, City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote
was 5-0.
6.
Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34
(Gentleman Jim's)
Re: Rezoning - 2404 S. Federal Highway
29
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, flORIDA
.,
...,
SEPTEMBER 19, 1995
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Commissioner Rosen moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-34 on second and final reading.
Vice Mayor Bradley seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote was 5-0.
7. Proposed Ordinance No. 095.35 Re: Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment - 2404 S. Federal Highway (Gentleman Jim's)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 by title only.
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Commissioner Rosen moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-35 on second and final reading.
Vice Mayor Bradley seconded the motion. City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote was 5-0.
8. Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 Re: Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment. Table #24 (revise table to show correct maximum density for
special high density residential classification as 20 units/acre)
Attorney Cherof read Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 by title only,
MAYOR TAYLOR ANNOUNCED THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO
WISHED TO SPEAK.
Motion
Vice Mayor Bradley moved to approve Proposed Ordinance No. 095-36 on second and final reading.
Commissioner Jaskiewicz seconded the motion, City Clerk Sue Kruse polled the vote. The vote was
5-0,
B. Ordinances - 1st Reading:
None
C. Resolutions:
30
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
":J
1'--.'
,
Motion
JUNE 20, 1995
Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to approve subject to staff recommendations and comments.
Vice Mayor Bradley seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
c.
Project Name:
Petitioner:
Description:
Policy 7,9.6, Table #24 Text Amendment
City of Boynton Beach
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT: Request
to amend Table #24 of the Coastal Management Support
Document to sh'ow correct maximum density as 20
dwelling units per acre rather than 16 dwelling units per
acre for the Special High Density Residential land use
category
Tambri Heyden made the presentation and explained that this request is to correct an error
which was discovered in the.coastal Management Support Document. The discrepancy is in
Table #24 which shows 16 dwelling units per acre for the Special High Density Residential
land use category. The Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map show 20 dwelling
units per acre.
THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT WHO WISHED TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
Motion
Mayor Pro Tem Matson moved to approve Policy 7.9.6, Table #24, Comprehensive Plan Text
Amendment, to amend Table #24 of the Coastal Management Support Document to show
correct maximum density as 20 dwelling units per acre rather than 16 dwelling units per acre
for the Special High Density Residential land use category. Commissioner Jaskiewicz
seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
D.
Project Name:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
2404 S, Federal Highway
Joseph G. Salamone
Boynton Jim, Inc.
East side of South Federal Highway at SE 23rd Avenue
(Gentleman Jim's Restaurant)
LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONINGITEXT
AMENDMENT: Request to amend the Future land
Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from local Retail
Commercial to Special High Density Residential, rezone
14
MINUTES
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, flORIDA
JUNE 20, 1995
from C-3, Community Commercial to R-3, Multi-family
Residential, and amend text of the Coastal Management
Support Document, Table #24 by changing the acreage of
the Special High Density area from 9.9 acres to 11.35
acres
Joseph Salamone, agent for the applicant, advised that the request for the zoning change was
made in order to unify the two parcels of land at the Gentleman jim's site. If the zoning is not
changed, two buildings would have to be built.
Tambri Heyden said the current zoning on this property is C-3, Local Retail Commercial. The
intent of this request is to unify this parcel with the parcel to the east for the development of
condominiums. The Special High Density land use was created to cover a number of coastal
condominiums already in the City which exceed the 10.8 dwelling units per acre maximum.
A change to Table #24 is also part of this request. The adjacent land uses are as follows:
North
Northeast & East
Streb's Restaurant zoned C-3
Undeveloped Special High Density land use parcel zoned
R-3
Hampshire Gardens zoned R-3
Mobil Service Station zoned C-3
South
West
\
Staff recommends approval of this request based on consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
It has been determined that traffic would be reduced by this amendment. Sanitary sewer
demands would be slightly increased and potable water demands would be increased. There
is capacity to satisfy all demands. The proposed increase in density is very low and represents
a maximum possible increase of 29 dwelling units.
The second basis for this recommendation for approval is the fact that it is compatible with the
future and current use of adjacent and nearby properties. The property is developable under
the current zoning and classification; however, the availability of land for assemblage
facilitates waterfront development.
Vice Mayor Bradley asked for an explanation of how this area became a Special High Density
area. Ms. Heyden explained that the change was made in 1989, and it was done to protect
the mangroves. Another reason this designation is applied to such an area is that there may
be a change in the property value of properties with commercial use.
Vice Mayor Bradley stated that he is in favor of the project, but he feels it is important to note
15
MINUTES W
REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
......
JUNE 20, 1995
that the high density of this area is to allow development on a parcel containing mangroves.
This is a way to allow the mangroves to exist and yet still allow development.
Commissioner Rosen feels this type of property can add a great deal to our redevelopment
when we begin to think in that direction.
Mr. Salamone confirmed for Mayor Pro Tem Matson that the condominiums will be two story,
fee-simple units.
Maurice Rosenstock, One Villa Lane, feels this property should not be used for multi-family
residential because Boynton Beach is becoming the bedroom of Palm Beach County. This
parcel has the potential for development that would add to the beauty of the City or to the
business community. He feels this area should be looked at in a different light. It is important
to accumulate parcels to add to the vision the City is in the process of discussing.
Commissioner Rosen questioned the price of the units. Mr. Salamone advised that the selling
price will be approximately $140,OOOper unit. ($140.000 - Corrected 7/5/95)
Mr. Salamone further stated that their neighbors are condo dwellers. A great deal of time was
taken in the design phase of the project. He is very concerned with beautifying the area and
did not want to develop something that would upset the community. The neighbors are
supporting this project. Mr. Salamone commended the Planning Department staff for their
assistance and stamina in dealing with the phone calls of residents who believed this project
was going to be a restaurant on the water. Mr. Rosenstock's remarks are the only opposition
Mr. Salamone has received relative to this project.
While Commissioner Jaskiewicz appreciated Mr. Rosenstock's comments, she felt
condominiums are very compatible to the area and will be an improvement. She was glad to
see that these are not going to be rental apartments, and will be only two stories in height.
She feels they will be an asset to the City. Mayor Pro Tem Matson agreed with Commissioner
Jaskiewicz' remarks.
Motion
Commissioner Jaskiewicz moved to approve subject to staff comments and recommendations.
Vice Mayor Bradley seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
MAYOR TAYLOR DECLARED A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS.
16
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-240
TO:
Chairman and~mbers, Planning and Development
LhA.a ~
T~ri~j:--~Yd ,Planning and Zoning Director
Board
THRU:
FROM: Michael W. Rumpf, Senior Planner
DATE: June 8, 1995
SUBJECT: 2404 S. Federal Highway - LUAR #95-003, CPTA #95-001
Request for Land Use Amendment/Rezoning and Text Amendment
INTRODUCTION
Joseph G. Salamone, Executive Vice President of Bravo Boynton, Inc., a
Florida partnership and contract purchaser, is requesting that 1.45
acres of property located on the east side of S. Federal Highway
(currently occupied by Gentleman Jim's Restaurant), directly opposite
S.E. 23rd Avenue be rezoned and that the Future Land Use plan
designation be amended (see location map in Attachment OA"). The
current land use and zoning on this property is Local Retail
Commercial and C-3 (Community commercial), respectively. To prepare
this property to be assembled with the adjacent property to the east
and developed with condominiums, the applicant is requesting that the
property be reclassified to Special High Density (permitted maximum of
20 dwelling units per acre), and rezoned to R-3, Multi-family
Residential. Lastly, in connection with the expansion of the Special
High Density (SH) area, Table #24-Site Specific Future Land Use and
Design Considerations-within the Coastal Management Support Document
is to be amended to show the acreage for the SH area (Map Area #16)
increased by the 1.45 acres. Table #24 describes the area delineated
for SH and special development regulations intended to both preserve
the site's environmentally sensitive features and to mitigate any
potential impacts generated by development at this higher density. In
brief, the applicant requests these changes to accommodate an overall
residential development through replacement of the less demanded/
valued commercial use, and application of the special maximum density
provision of 20 dwelling units per acre to offset the site specific
development restrictions as required of development within the SH
district pursuant to Table #24, Coastal Management support Document
(as adopted by Policy 7.9.6). The specific design considerations
include a 150 feet shoreline setback, and southern setbacks which
increase with building height (e.g. 1 & 2 levels-40 feet; 3 levels-75;
and 4 levels-100 feet).
With respect to the text amendment, this amendment is only necessary
to properly maintain the Comprehensive Plan, and specifically, the
description of Map Area #16 which delineates an area immediately to
the north and east of the subject property. Table #24, Site Specific
Future Land Use and Design Considerations, of the Coastal Management
Support Document was adopted into the Plan by policy 7.9.6, and in
part, describes the size of the area that the Special High Density
classification and design recommendations apply to (see map and Table
#24 within Attachment "B"). Logically, if the SH area is expanded to
include the subject property, the corresponding recommendations should
apply to the new area, and Table #24 should be revised to accurately
describe the property within Map Area #16.
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS
A plan amendment may follow an abbreviated review schedule as
established by the Florida Department of Community Affairs if the
proposed amendment effects less than 10 acres of property and does not
involve a land use classification with a density exceeding 10 units
per acre. Since the subject amendment involves a density of 20 units
per acre, the proposed map and text amendments are limited to the
standard review procedure which requires approximately 6 to 8 months
to complete.
MEMORANDUM
UTILITIES DEPT. NO. 95 - 114
TO:
Tambri Heyden, Planning Di
l'
FROM:
John A. Guidry, Utilities Director
DATE:
March 27, 1995
,,-/ ..
SUBJECT: Impact of rezoning - 3.5 acre parcel including Gentleman Jim's
Based upon conversations between Peter Mazzella and Michael Rumpf of your
office, we project a potential potable water use of 8,600 gpd (258,000 gallons per
month) for the 20 apartment units that may be constructed at that site. In
conversations with one of the owners, Mr. Salomone, his current water usage for
the restaurant ranges from 81,000 - 129,000 gallons per month. The residential
development would therefore create an increased demand for potable water.
Based upon sanitary sewer usage of 90 gpcd, we can also forecast a sewer usage of
3,870 gpd, or 116,100 gallons per month, which correlates closely to the current
usage.
In view of these assumptions, this utility has sufficient reserve capacity to
accommodate the additional demand. The residential development will require that
fire flow requirements be brought to current standards, which may require some off-
site improvements at the developer's expense. We recommend the applicant have
fire flow tests conducted to ascertain the available fire flow to the site at this time.
Please refer any questions on this matter to Peter Mazzella of this office.
JAG/PVM
bc: Peter Mazzella
xc: Skip Milor
Michael Rumpf, Planning
File
~,~
\\u\ ~ @-~ G W
II n\r:,: '~ 9
,,,,wI ..'
-'.~_. '~...
U>
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM NO. 95-180
FROM:
Sue Kruse,
city Clerk
I,j?
Michael Rumpf,
Senior Planner
TO:
DATE:
April 27, 1995
SUBJECT:
2404 South Federal Highway
Application for Land Use Amendment/Rezoning (LUAR 95-003)
Application for Compo Plan Text Amendment (CPTA 95-001)
Accompanying this memorandum, please find copies of the above-
referenced applications and corresponding documents and materials
related to property owner notifications. These applications are
scheduled for public hearings on June 13, 1995 (Planning and
Development Board), and on June 20, 1995 (City Commission).
In the event that you wish to omit those property owners that are
actually not within 400 feet of the subject property, I should
point out that despite only a portion of a large condominium
development being located within 400 feet of the subject property,
all condominium members are included in the identification list.
If you have any questions please let me know.
Attachments
2404SUE,MEM