CORRESPONDENCE
tTfre City of
t.Boynton t.Beacli
'~:'o ;,~
'/<c_ ~)
~ ,~" .~
, ,
'~ ~/
"'~~
100 'E. 'Boynton 'Btadi 'Bouk'(JQ.T({
P,O. 'llo:{.31O
'Boynton 'BU1&., Jroritfa 33425.0310
City:Hoff: (407)375-6000 July 6, 1994
J"JU: (407) 375-6()9()
Mr. Robert Pennock, Chief
Bureau of Local Planning
Div. of Resource Planning and Management
State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, FL 32399
PEl Transmittal of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Planning
Ar'ea 8.h)
Dear Mr. Pennock:
Enclosed you will find SIX (6) copies (individual copies have been
simultaneously sent to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council,
the FOOT-District Four, the South Florida WMD, and the Department of
Environmental Protection) of the required transmittal documents for
one (11 proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. This proposed
amendment, also referred to as Item 16, consists of an amendment to
the Future Land Use Map and an amendment to the Text of the
Comprehensive Plan. This proposed amendment has been initiated as the
result of a Summary Judgement for Declaratory Relief as ordered by the
Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Palm Beach
County, on ,June 3,1994 (see Attachment IIf)II). ~,s detailed in the
staff r'epor't, the 1989 Compl'ehensi vee Pl,3n changed the 1 and use on th,~
subject property from Local Retail Commercial to Office Commercial
and, consequently over looked a 1973 Final Judgement on the property
which declared the right of the property owners to develop the
property with a set of uses which are generally comparable to the
current C-3 zoning district (and Local Retail Commercial land use
class; fi,~ation). In changing the land use to Office Commer'cial, th"
City was restricting the property to be development in accordance with
th," more r estr"ictive C-l zonin'~ distr'ict. This or"i'~in,,,l actie,n was
based on City Commission opinion that the Final Judgement was no
longer valid for the following reasons: 1) circumstances have changed
(development patterns in the area, the surplus of retail uses, etc.);
21 no attempt was e.er been made to develop the property classified
,3,nd zon"d for r'etai!; and 3) it wa:" felt that offlc," uses wer'e most
compatible with the adjacent residential community. This property
remains undeveloped.
Given that court action has declared the land use for this property,
as well as ordered the city to take all steps necessary to comply with
s.3id or'der., staff is seeking ~he most efficient process to expedite
this pr'oposed amendment. Therefore, we are requesting that this item
be processed accordingly and, particularly that no review be
c.ondLJ(.t~d.
This item was reviewed by t~e Planning and Development Board (LPA) on
Jtmeriazs (jateway to die (juifttream
To: Mr. Robert Pennock
- 2 -
.Julv 6. 1994
,June 11, 1991 and originally tabled by the City Commission on .June 18,
1991. In response to the recent court order. the city Commission
removed this item from the table and took appropriate action on .July
5, 1994. .Iith r'espect to adoption, staff anticip,'3tes tf",t ordinances
will be adopted in October or November of the current year.
Pursuant to this court order and related time constraints, staff was
unable to conduct a thorough analysis of this amendment as r'equired by
Rule 9,)-11. However. I think that the following infor'm,ation will be
sufficient for your evaluation of this proposed amendment given that
there exists text language which justifies commercial land use and,
the only concrete justificaticn or documentation against Local Retail
Commercial is the projection in the data and analysis which indicates
that the greatest commErcial surplus, at build-out, will be that of
land designated for f"etail uses. In fact, this br'ief analysis
indicates that, although thlS proposed amendment is inconsistent with
the Future Land Use Map, there is information which justifies the
conver'sian t() Local F:etai'l C'ommer'cial.
In accordance with the requirements of Rule 9.J-l1.006, please be
informed that the subject amendment is not in an area of critical
state concern or the Wekiva River Protection Area, and nor are they
related to a proposed development of regional impact or to be adopted
under a joint planning agr'Eement.
FUI,ther'mor'e, ,33 indicated by the letter's included within Attachment
"A" of the r'epor't for' pr'oposed amendments lI'l thl'lr lI5, the
Comprehensive plan and related support documentation was previously
provided to other reviewers and they were informed that said documents
would be updated by subsequent amendments.
Should you have any questions on the subject amendments, please
contact Michael Rumpf, Senior Planner at:
City of Boynton Beach, P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310
Tel: (407) 375-6260
With respect to the remaining submittal requirements outlined in
amended Rule 9.J-11.006. the following has also been provided for your
information:
(l)(b)(l) Six copies of the map indicating the proposed future land
use map designations, fJr'oper'ty boundaries and their' relation
to the surrounding street and thoroughfare network are
i ncl uded in Attachment "A", and the pr'oposed Text .3mendment
is also indicated in the staff report (please note that only
those pages with amended text at-'e inclllded, as the entit-e
Future Land Use Support Document, including Section VIII.
Pr'ob1ems ,and Oppor'tunities, ,.as pr'ovidecl to you and th,"
other. r'€vie....'er's on December" 14,1993 within amendment
package 9353), Thi" map is a portion of the cLJr't"ent Futur',",
Land Use Map which indicates the impacted area. Only an
except has been submitted which reflects my interpretation
of the submittal requirements of 9.J-ll This Rule
indicates wh,st infolmation is to be shown on a map! however',
To:
,,1r'. Robsr't Pennock
- 3 -
,Julv 6. 1994
not specifically the city's Fufure land Use Map. If this is
,3 rni:311ndEf'st.snding clild, an :.;:<nt-if"B map '1S needed, the ver'sioil
pr'ovided tv you in amendment pac~age 9353 is our cur'r"ent
verSiOi). If this is unavailable to you, please lEt me l<n0w
and 1 w'll immediatelv provide you with a current Plan;
(1)(b)(2) The pre3ent land use designations of the subject properties
an:l abutting pr'oper"tl~s Eir'c~ IJl:::o indicated on the rnap
c1sc:c,'il).,d Elb"ve and found in Attachment "A" (please note
that only an exceret of the Future land Use Map is included,
which addresses the subject property, as the current map was
pt'ovided to you and other' reviewet~s withirl the 93S~
amendment pack,3ge tr'ansmi ttec! ,)n D',cember 14, 1993);
(1)(b)13) The size of the subject property is 30 acres (23.71);
(l)(b)(4) An indicati,c.n of the aY,elil,:ibility of, Elnd the demand on
public tacilit';es is found b'210w; however', ,'lease note that
time did not permit formal notification of and review by
s; e \" \, !I' C e p r' 0 v "j de t" 3 . ::;, .;: f" vie e P I I 0 v '; dE r' s wi l 1 be not i f'i e d r.) f
this proposed amendment and particularly the court-related
b8Sis :,n whi(i, it is t.eing pr'ocessed:
(1)(b)(5) Information regarding the compatibility of the Future Land
1)30 Marl ameildrrlEnts with the Compr'el,ensive Plan, and othSl"'
iilfor'mation t'elativ2 to the !)asis of the r'ecoolmendation3 is
pr'ov"ld;~;din t.he st'?!"ff r'~por't v.rithln Atta,:hm>?nt IIB'I ~ dnd
,~ddr'e,33ed iil the summary t.elow:
( 1 ) I,' C ~
st3ff f-econim'211datioi1 and thE r'ecornmenJatiGll o"f the local
p 1 3nni il'~ ,~']elli: y i 2~ i nd i <:.;.'1te d '\")1 thi Ii ~1em()r"tjndum i)o. 94 - 208
(i\U ,oichmc fit "e"); an:1
(2)
NA
In addition to the staff r'port which indicates, in part, th~ l~gal
basis Oi-I wh~ch t~lP Futuf'e I_an,j llse Map and Te~t is be~r)9 anlended, tl10
follc1willg illfGr'm~!tion fur'th3f' jU3tifie3 or" ,'Jescrib~s this proposed
Compreh0nsi~e Pl~n amendnl€nt with I"e~pect to (compliancE with S.163~
F.5.. Rules 9J-5 and 9J-l1, F,A.C,. and the City's comprehEnsive Plan:
1. As indic,3ted ,:;jbove, thlS ~,1ap amendment and Tei\t amendrnen1" i::;
being pr'ocessed pur'suant to ('ecent cO\Jrot actio!) which r"equir'es
the City tel t"0Vel't th\".: 1,:::Uld use on the subject proper'ty to Loc,::Jl
Retail Commer'ci3l, fr'om C'ffi"" '~ommer',:ia1 (see attachments). In
Addition to the Map amendmEnt, specific Text must also be
amended. Section VIII. Land Use Problems and Opportunities
(Futu'''e Land US'2 '"uppor't Document), which was adop'ti,d by
rsference into the Comprehensive Plan, provides recommEndations
for" individual pr"op~rties. Par'aqr'aph 8.h (P1annin9 Area 8,.hl, L,
found on page 100/101 within this portion of the support document
and i5 the basi3 for the curr'ent Office Commercial land use
designation. As indicated in the staff report and on the
replacE,ment pages within Attachment "02", text r'elated to 'Jffice
Commercial land use is to be deleted, and te.t referencing the
court order is Added.
To:
Mr. Pob~rt Pennock
- 4~
Julv 6, 1994
Although these proposed amendments are court ordered. there is
evidence within the plan which, in part, justifies the proposed
Local Retail Commercial land use classification. This
justification is based on the following:
a. Policy '1.4.13
This policy states that the city shall oppose changes in
land use which are in conflict with the city of Boynton
Beach Comprehensive Plan. Notwithstanding the subject court
order, the information below, in part, indicates that this
proposed amendment is generally consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
b. Policy 1.17.1
This policy discourages against additional commercial uses
bev0cd those shown on the Map, except where access is
greatest and impacts on residential land uses are least.
With respect to access, th~ subject croperty is located on a
malor 11or'tll-south thor'oughfar'2 (rongr'ess Avenue) wtlich is
locat,.:c! b.2t'I",JE'En 1-95 .3nd Militar'y Ti"8'il. VI/i'tll r'e~.pect tc.
lrnp.]cts on r'...:;~c;idc:?ntl,31 uses~ as indicated by th"2' cUf'r.s-nt
descl'iptie.n ot this pl,,(.per"cyin the Text (AI'ea 3.h), "th,,,
pl"opel'ty ,s fai 1'1 y \"le'll -buffel"Ed fl'om ,oouITound'i ng
I" e 5 ide nee S l t I-I i,:' II e.3 r- est 0 f \..IJ hie h \"1'1 11 1 i >:.' (I \' e i" 5 0 0 f '2 E: t to
rhe we'3t" (actuall y OV'?I' 600 f0et when conaidel' i 11'J buffer'l n9
,gnd setba.:ks) and lIthe inter'venin'] pr'oper'ty is occupi,~!d by a
lake and ';Jolf coul'se" (which pl'0v'id,c's naturE,l buffer''in'9 and
separation! in addition to that r'squit'ed on site, and which
will remain in p0r'petuity);
c. Pollcv 1.19.6
This policy states that additional commercial acreage should
not be allowed unless a particular property is unsuitable
for" other' uses, a geographic need exists, or no other
suitable property for the commel'cial use exists. with
r'€spect to a geogr'aphic need, the nearest retail center
(within the City) is located over 2 miles to the north. It
3hould also be noted that no locations exist between the
subject property and the nearest shopp'ing center which will
likely support shoppin9 c0nter development, therefore this
distance to nearby reta'il amenities will not change.
Furthermore, although the Text describes the residential
at"sas as havin9 1l1ow avet'age den:;~itv't, the adjacent
res'idential community (Hunter's Runl contains approximately
1.500 dwelling units. At an average rate of 10 trips per
dW0llin9 unit, this single residential community alone could
generate in excess of 15,000 trips per day. According to
current traffic counts. over 23,000 average tr'ips per day
haVE been calculated for this segrnent of Congr'ss! Avellue.
other adjacent land uses which would generate demand for
such a commercial (retail) center Include the employment
cellter's of adjacent industt-ial businesses, one of the
County's t0chnical schools (South-Tech), and two nearby h'igh
density residential neighborhoods. Therefore, a ge09raphic
need could be exist.
To:
Mr. Robert Pennock
-5-
,July 5,1994
d. planning Area 8.h (Future Land Use Support Document)
This descr'ipt'ion of the 5ubject pr'oper'ty indicates that "the
supply and demand for commercial land in the City indicates
that there will be demand in the long-run for this
comrner'cial p,'oper'ty, which is cur'r'ently in the Local Retail
Cammer'cial land use cate'3ol"'Y". It 03150 indic.stes that
office us~s ar'e pf'efer"able as the nearEst shopping centers
aI".? locat",d (it implies "just") 2 1/2 miles to the nor'th a'Hl
1 1/2 miles to the south. By comparison, with the exception
of this southern end of the City, cornmercial shopping
center's along Congress Avenue ar'8 spaced apar"t by no more
than 1 1/2 miles. In fact, at one location there are tW0
adjacent shopping centers (with majo, grocery stores), and
at a secan,l location thet-'e are thr'ee shoppii18 centel'S
adjacent to one another. Based on proximity to nearby
comme,'cial activity cE.nters, this proper'ty could poss'ibl y
3upport r'etai I use,;.
e. Traditional Neighborhood Design
A pr'ima,'y' benefit of TND is the ,'eduction of tr'affic,
particularly on primary thoroughfares. A commercial center
at this location would provide services to this region of
the city and therefore, theoretically reduce travel
distances (traditlonal neighborhood design is not
specifically addressed in the City's Comprehensive Plan).
The adjacent residential cornmunity was designed to provide
direct access to subject property, therefore preventing the
n0ed to traverse the thor'ougilfar'e when accessing the
pr'oper'ty.
2. This property conteins no environmentally sensitive, or native
features wo,thy of consideration in the City's Comprehensive Plan
or the Palm Beach County inventory of native ecnsysterns.
Furthermo,e, this site consists of no historic features worthy of
f'ecognition by either" t~le City or Palm Beset) County;
3. With respect to the elimination or reduction of land uses
inconsistent witl1 ttl8 city1s char"aetsr' and, the need to incres36
or decrease the intensity of land uses, this arnendrnent is
pursuant to a court order, is reasonably compatible with
ad.i,~cent land !!ses, dnd par'tiall y justificed bv the text ,and
policies with the ("mprehenciive Plan;
4. The subj.?ct proper'ty is located within the "A" flood zone;
however, development must comply with applicable drainage
regulations and policies of the City, the Lake Worth Drainage
[I '; 51: I' i ct, a nd/ or-- the '3cut h F lor" i ,::1.3 \4a t €I' Mana'deme n1: [I i st t" i ct ;
S. \'Ii th "espe::t to T,'aff'ic ci rcu'l ation El ernent anal ysi s
'" e qui rem e n t s, s t a f f has de t eel" m i n e ,:1 (U f'I" e n t t; a f f i c co u n t s to be
28~605 average tr'ips per' day f.)f' Congt"EsS Avenue, and accor'ditlg
to the ma.irnum volume allowed to maintain levels of service
(29,400), there is currently a surplus of 800 trips. It should
be ~mphasized that this site would be subject to concurrency
review in accordance with the City's Comp,ehensive Plan and the
Countywide Traffic Performance Standards Ordinance. No
To:
Mr. Robert Pennock
-6-
Julv 6, 1984
development would be permitted which would lower the adopted
level of service standards and, therefore, the policies of the
Plan would be complied with.
6. With respect to Housing Element analysis requirements, this
Element is not applicable as the amendments will not affect the
demand for or availability of the housing supply;
7. with respect to Infrastructure Element analysis requirements,
please note that sewer and water capacity is rated at 12 mgd and
oVer' 23 mgd, r'sspectively. Based on current demands for' these
services, there is capacity is an e~ce3S of 7 mgd for sewer
service, and 11 mgd for water' ser'vicE.
8. The Coastal Management Element is not applicable as the subject
property is not located within the coastal management area;
9. The Conservation Element is not applicable as this site contains
no characteristics recognized by the Citv's ConsErvation Element
or' the County1s Compr'ehensive Plan;
10. The Recreation & Open Space Element is not applicable as the
amendments do not affect the demand for or availability of
recreation amenities;
11. The Intergovernmental Coordination Element analysis requirements
have been satisfied as proper notifications to service pf'ovider's
and adjacent entities hav~ been sent;
12. With respect to Capital Improvements Element analysis
requirements, there are no impacts upon capital facilities that
have not been projected within the analysis of the Comprehensive
Plan. Levels of service will be maintained, as when appropriate,
thi3 site would be subject to concurrency review;
13. With respect to consistency with the ~tate Comprehensive Plan and
the Regional Comprehensive Policy Plan, the above statements,
along with the information provided within the staff report
address ell pertinent issues and topics within the State and
Regional Plans. Such issues and topics include housing, natural
systems, endanger'ed species, levels of sel'vice, intergQVerrlmental
coordination, public facilities, historic resources, and
transportation.
If you have any questions concerning this amendment package, please do
not hesitate to contact this office.
Very Truly Yours,
CC:nlt'
Enclosures
A1G1PZneA2.L.~
Tambri J. Heyden
Acting Planning and Zoning Dir.
.I> :::::=
~ ,-,",
11'\"
"0,>
" '
'(--~"7\,':l!i-,I~. ",)1,~), u.l
0L~"'" 1_/'....,
I'/"_:>.~:~;',:~~~) "
',,' I ' \...., -,.) ~ ~-,
: fil~:~,~i'7:;{':
,(y~.u~~Wfu\\lGl~ \ 'l', '<:;,i-- ,';'
/:;:"0 .7:,,' '1/'" ~ ~. .....:. \~.:.> S'" ':-~,i
I ""-.;;/ . . -. "
c$> ~ "'. " '.'" ,-'"',""'\ \ _j"- :.'
0"'0/ / '" \ r-f>I"l':"
",}~~ " ~' :>,'.,
I. f'1' _', ~ I ~ Sf E r. '
Cr1 ":'~.u~. " ,:
OJ i ""'''';p<::fl ~i
I HGJamg)~1lI 0- ... ".' - "
"J ,y------ '''l'J --.",0 ' t' '
,':c((~~~'~ ~i'-~~~' -\' ~ ",7 ;
,j' ~~~$ <Jr,. ~ ',' .'
" " _ ':--'-S' 8 f, :1~ 8' ,
:(~~~:'i:\'~1 :. :"YJ' -"'.'
......... {lJ ~m \ ',-" ~..'w '
'- u,ifi:;<<;" ~0 ~. . .: ,) ..' _. ,
"-.'-_ ~.'~ ~8\\,,\ U,/ " --- I .-
:'C!rlJ%";"_-~~~;::/~', ., I
l-am~~~~4~p'--"'o- [.:,' 00,: '.
. - ~ 1-1 :,' .'u~ ,',.. ~ .._
'<(> , .. ~
'.,Ill_o.l,~ \''''I-D - L',"O
. ~ t1 r;r-="--
. 01J1 DELR ~
;';,I:I;.~ .. :jl 0
/
'''1'''' Hr"" , ----
.1:1~1'" ;,~ r"liTh r 'ir=Jf~~rl1j ij' ::' /~ .
*NOTE: THE LAND USE,lONING.USE,AND DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PH PERTY
IS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT-ORDERED SE TLEMENT
STIPULA TIONS IN EFFECT FOR THIS AREA AS SET FORTH IN
APPENDIX D OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT SUPPORT
DOCUMENTS.
\ , ,
If NOTE: THIS PROPERTY IS THE SUBJECT OF A COURT ORDER ENTERED MAY 10. 197:
, \ REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE TO THAT COURT ORDER.
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS CONTEMPLA TE[
l,..~
l'V
!
r
,
I
!
~-'- }L'f _
, I:: i :~
! I.
,,,," 'I
.\ To
I Ii' I I!
j j 1
.. ~!
CH
I,',
.'-
"
, .
,/:(.
/. '
CD
7.9~
j I
MAP KEY
RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY (LDR)
MA'X 4.84 D.U.I ACRE
: J~.L
/ .~
~- M i _.~.- I
-. ~
, , --- --
]L{-"l~f- ~ ,~
. Ii r '.
. ..1 ~i':~il!,.~_
.......v. .'" ..~. I( 1/.'" .
I --d )0", " I
~', ... '
; f
'; -....-..-.
, ~~I" "Il~ .. I
, ! ' , #11:11'1
, :i I
'I 'I I
. I I .
, I.
'~.,~ W ," t
U
r;
jJjU:~U-.Rl' f1
~:::::3 MODERATE DENSITY (MODR)
,
MAX 7.26 D.U.I ACRE
,~ .
~'
I:::...:.:l MEDIUM DENSITY (MeQR)
MAX 9.68 D.U.lACRE
fI!JII HIGH DENSITY (HDR)
M~X 10.8 D.U.I ACRE
COMMERCIAL .'
i'
'{ .'; i/
!'
1.- -j
1,1 I
N--1
. . (
\M
ii I
" .
f ,
~ OFFICE (DC)
- .1
~ LOCAL RETAIL (LRC)
. '
"'iW D~
~ GENERAL (GC)
) !)
,
" '--
,
I
,r-.,
L...;.j
INDUSTRIAL (I)
-i
,
, OTHER
i :/1 _-'
I
I'
,
1
f'7""1
uw
AGRICULTURE .- . (A)
I . - l."__.
AECREATIONAL ! (R)
I'
;1
I
I
,
;
I
I
r:r"0.l
~
~
--._---..,-~_.....-,. --
~
E;j,~\!m PUBLlC & PRIVATE (PPGI)
GOVERNMENT ALl INSTITUTIONAL
,
~
MIXED USE
(MX)
~ I I
I
. fJ1ie City of
'.Boynton '.Beac.n
100 'Eo 'Boynttm 'Beacft 'Boufevruri
P.O. ~310
'Boynttm 'Buz&. %nitfa 33425-0310
City 1fDJ[: (4lJ7) 3754JOO
:flU: (4lJ7) 375-6090
June 27, 1994
The IPARC Clearinghouse
c/o Town of Lantana
500 Greynolds Circle
Lantana, FL 33462
RE: ADDENDUM TO PLAN AMENDMENT PACKAGE BO,{-l
HUNTER'S RUN COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
Pursuant to the results of a Declaratory Judgement requested by the
City, in connection with a Final Judgement rendered in 1973, the
City is now required to revert the land use classification for this
property to that which was in place prior to adoption of the 1989
Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, a text amendment is necessary to
amend an adopted portion of the Future Land Use support Document
which is the basis for the current office Commercial Land Use.
This item was reviewed by the Local planning Agency on June 11,
1991 and tabled by the City Commission on June 18, 1991 in order to
seek a declaratory judgement regarding the original Final Judgement
(1973). The City was denied summary judgement and, consequently
must now comply with the original (1973) Final Judgement. Pursuant
to the advice of legal staff this amendment must be expedited, and
therefore will be included within the BOY-1 amendment package. As
the city Commission will review this proposed amendment on July 5,
1994, transmittal is anticipated on July 6, 1994. The public
hearing is to be held at 7:00 P.M. in the Commission Chambers at
city Hall, 100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard, Boynton Beach, Florida.
Should you have any questions or need additional information,
contact Michael Rumpf, Senior planner at 375-6260.
Sincerely,
~:t.-~
Planning and zoning Director
TH:mr
Enclosures
'BOT1A.1:Pe'.L."
~merU;a's (jateway to tlU (julfstream.
Page I of2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
DATE: JUNE 24, 1994
Reference #: BOY-l (ADDENDUM)
General Information
Initiating Local Government: CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
Contact Person: MICHAEL W. RUMPF, SENIOR PLANNER
Address: 100 E. BOYNTON BEACH BLVD.. BOYNTON BEACH, FL 3342ll
Telephone/Fax: (407) 375-6260 (407) 375-6090
Applicant! Agent: CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
Telephone/Fax:
Proposed Comprehensive Plan Textual Amendments
General Summary of Amendments:
- amendments relating to traffic circulation or the roadway networks
- amendments relating to affordable housing
Amendments related to the following elements:
-X- land use
- traffic circulation
- mass transit
- ports and aviation
- housing
- infrastructure sub-elements
- coastal management
- conservation
- recreation and open space
- intergovernmental coordination
- capital improvements
- other
Summary of addition (s) to adopted comprehensive plan: N/A
Page 2 of2
Summary of proposed change (s) to adopted comprehensive plan: SECTION VIII OF FUTURE LAND USE
SUPPORT DOCUMENT WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED INTO PLAN. IT CONTAINS SITE SPECIFIC
RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHICH THE FLU MAP IS BASED. CHANGES TO MAP WHICH INVOLVE THESE
RECOMMENDATIONS ALSO MUST BE AMENDED. SUBJECT AMENDMENTS TO TEXT IS REQUIRED TO DELEr,
TEXT RELATED TO OFFICE COMMERCIAL LAND USE. THIS AMENDMENT IS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WIr,
COURT ORDER FINDING PREVIOUS AMENDMENT TO SUBJECT PROPERTY TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH
A STIPULATED SETTLEMENT AND FINAL JUDGEMENT RENDERED IN 1973.
Proposed Amendments to the Future Land Use l\iap
Location of proposed map amendment (include a location map) WEST SIDE OF SOUTH CONGRESS AVE.
APPX. 1 MILE SOUTH OF GOLF ROAD (IMMEDIATELY EAST OF HUNTER'S RUN COMMUNITY).
Size of Area Proposed for Change (acres) 30 ACRES (29.71)
Present Future cand Use Plan Designation (include a density/intensity definition) OFFICE COMMERCIAL
Proposed Future Land Use Designation (include a density/intensity definition) LOCAL RETAIL COMMERCIAl
Present Zoning of Site (include a density/intensity definition) C-3 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
Proposed Zoning of Site (include a density/intensity definition) C-3 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
Present Development of Site UNDEVELOPED
Proposed Development of the Site, ifknown (Number of Dwelling Units; Commercial Square Footage;
Industrial Square Footage; Other Proposed usage and intensity):
NO DEVELOPMENT CURRENTLY PROPOSED
Is proposed change a Development of Regional Impact? NO
Comprehensive Plan Change Processing
DatelTimeILocation Scheduled for Local Planning Agency Public Hearing
LPA REVIEWED AMENDMENT ON JUNE 11, 1991 (WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TABLED BY CITY COMMISSION)
DatelTimeILocation Scheduled for Governing Body Public Hearing
WAS TABLED ON JUNE 18, 1991. TRANSMITTAL HEARING TO BE HELD ON JULY 5, 1994 IN THE
COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA.
Scheduled Date for Transmittal to DCA APPX. JULY 6, 1994.
E
H
. /PARCEL\ THUNTEP.-S -RUN
;/
~: -:,NJ &;;~o",,~A .. ~{ ~ql opU' f\!: ~ - ~.. QSil;' s
. ~ 1...--.__.._.~ "~,.....o. ... ~
r _ ':' .' ll' I '.
"'". ~ ",,'''.0 . 0 C1-, ,;
., ft r . M' ......
11
" -. ,-I n , ..
c...' .,. ;1'" \."'.. w"'......j,,;'
L- ~-J' ....1- }'. &'.....~.-... , ' I'" "h'
, L- / V -';.;: , l.~ - .,- \ -:"T.
" I- _ --' ~ 1"'- " .\
^ ".\= t'i:T1.~ ;= r- .~'" 'l ~"}~' ~ "r-
';J t::=.~=~ ~~..,. ~ I ..:: ~ ~ .. · J ~~,:a~' .:
) .^... tc.. C. ,,,,., c..,'~ ,1'
/ In ~~/Q I-- ~, ~o ~ f- ~ -1,' \ ITlI"T'T',-{/--I ~
. _ 0-" I '- ;.u""'" ,',] L. ..
\ \ ~ ) -.... /'; \i 0- t ..:., !IT ' :;:~ ,.. I....., :J
CoJ , 7 77 "~I ~," ''iliIi m~, . c :~ --....c.
~ l" -. J 1;._ t. <~ ""C,-~ '''e;:.
" ' ;= '- ". Hj~ rr;~~'" c' .,.. :':'=
'--- -'" ~ '. "" ~""..,
~ !!! ,~ c,...~.. ~
~ .~I '~~~~ ~ o'~ -c~rr.o~1
_ ^ !::). ~~I t? '"l"N - \.-_ ,", 1~r'- ~PUj\\
~ ~ -::;..-::;G -'-
.~. , '.. ",<> 6"1/.0" /i. e' I ,.....-, ~
<:)<:) &~<rh sGJ (j 1. I ~ , lUX.. R e c ~ ~ ).-
'0 ~ & ~ ~ crt\~1l!1ll1ll ft'...J' \~ ~
~ .<" ,,~ ,"~;' , ~fE
_ ~ TR/lCT-r; \ \1 7
" 0 " 1\ ~
f1 ~,t\ .. .. \VI" ,"
'~I ~ ~.,,~ J)'\\' \ \'1 \ '\ ---.g, 7/
~ Nil -.> -,u:- ,..,:. ~ \ \, \ "
.,J ......s jDfIIII mr alllla.;:tI --.'; ..,
Qi' e ..") ~~2J --: ~. .' ,.
; . ~(rz (l) '....
';. e \; 0 -~ve (1 - ~ 'f ", :
, . Ei1 ~, --A'ict "p" 9.[" ~ ::
Ei1 ~t!::1'/,-~ ~ a~''''': , :
,~_,~ e ~ a f; :
<;f \e _~'W'ae .', :
. ----.,' tI '" l'j e '...t. .
~"~0\1. vA r.rrO
/"\, ~ ;'~\L~.
tr;;;am~~'" "<"~ 1'--~'1
A' llllD amommD C/Dl~."l IJ:-'"[;?.. --..,. ~:....... ~
!:7 ~ s !: l'" ...:\
m8, 'iI" ;t..'
R3
(.....
\
r\ Y
"J~I~~
qJ;
'/
,-
.c'",,.,,...L,.. . ,"0
.
..~.&....- .........
~.
.5
/
,
(
reclassified to allow development of similar commercial uses. As
stated above, the analysis of the supply and demand of commercial
land for retail and other uses projected a surplus which exceeds
140 acres. Furthermore, since there currently exists shopping
centers located within 2 1/2 miles to the north, and 1 1/2 miles
to the south, it is unlikely that an immediate geographic need
exists for such uses.
REASONABLENESS OF THE SCALE OF THE PROPOSED LAND USE RELATED TO
THE NEEDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE CITY AS A WHOLE
See "Consistency With The Established Land Use Pattern. .."
AVAILABILITY OF SITES ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY FOR THE PROPOSED USE
There currently exists available sites within the City that would
permit the development of uses allowed under the requested land
use category and existing C-3 zoning district.
-
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
From a planning perspective, it is recommended that "Office
commercial" is now a more appropriate land use category than
"Local Retail Commercial." The basis for this recommendation is
summarized as follows:
a) The site is located in close proximity to residential areas
wi th a low average density. The impacts of a land use
permitted within the "Office Commercial" category would
likely impact upon the residential areas the least, and
would be more consistent with the adjacent uses;
b) The analysis of the supply and demand of commercial land for
retail and other uses projects a surplus of over 140 acres
at build-out, compared with a surplus of 56 acres projected
for land for office use. In addition, the presence of
shopping centers within 2 1/2 miles and 1 1/2 miles to the
north and south, respectively, should provide for any
specific geographiC need;
c) Proper access, namely an east-west thoroughfare, to serve
the most intense development allowed under the "Local Retail
Commercial" land uie category does not exist at this site;
d) The comprehensive Plan recommends this site to be
reclassified to "Office Commercial" and rezoned to C-1
(Office/professional). Furthermore, Comprehensive plan
poliCY 1.4.13 states that the City will oppose requests for
changes in land use which are in conflict with the City's
comprehensive Plan; and
e) The conditions existing at the time when the property was
annexed and zoned have changed. Since 1972, numerous
commercial developments have been completed within the area,
and additional parcels of property have been reclassified
and/or rezoned to allow for retail commercial development.
t
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
There is an obvious conflict between the result achieved by a
planning review and the result achieved when the Final Judgement
is applied. That conflict should be addressed by the city
Attorney. If "Local Retail Commercial" is determined to be the
legally correct land use category for this site, based on the
underlying Final Judgement and Stipulation and Agreement, a
comprehensive plan text amendment will be required in addition to
the Land Use Amendment. The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use
support Document, Area 8.h., which is on page 94 of the support
Document, currently reads as follows:
Area 8.h. Commercial Parcel Frontina on Conaress Avenue East of
Hunter's Run
The analysiS of the supply and demand for commercial
3
(
land in the City indicates that there will be demand in
the long-run for this commercial property, which is
currently in the Local Retail Commercial land use
category and C-3 Community Commercial zoning district.
The site is fairly well-buffered from surrounding
residences, the closest of which will lie over 500 feet
to the west. The intervening property is occupied by a
lake and golf course. Because of these two
factors--the long-run demand for the commercial acreage
and the distance from existing and future residences,
it is recommended that commercial land use and zoning
remain. However, due to the low average density of
surrounding residential projects, the presence of
Shopping centers 2 1/2 miles to the north and 1 1/2
miles to the south, and the lack of an east-west
thoroughfare, this site would be more suitable for
office use as opposed to retail use. Office use would
also create fewer impacts on the adjacent P.U.D. and
the City park which lies to the north; therefore, it is
recommended that this parcel be placed in the Office
Commercial land use categor~. It is also recommended
that bUffering measures be employed in the development
of this property, including vegetative screening and
directed lighting.
The amendment to the Support Document should include the removal
of text that recommends this area to be classified as Office
Commercial, and the addition of text that provides notice of the
underlying Court Order, and Stipulation and Agreement, which
governs the zoning of this parcel. The amended text should read
as follows:
Area S.h. Commercial Parcel Frontinq on Conqress Avenue East
of Hunter's Run
The analYSis of the supply and demand for commercial
land in the city indicates that there will be demand in
the long-run for this commercial property, which is
currently in the Local Retail Commercial land use
category and C-3 Community Commercial zoning district.
The site is fairly well-buffered from surrounding
residences, the closest of which will lie over 500 feet
to the west. The intervening property is occupied by a
lake and golf course. ~~~~~~~/~t/t~~_~/t~~ '
fa~t~t_fft~~/~~~~ft~~/~~~a~~/f~t/t~~/t~~~~ttta~/itt~i;~
a~~/t~;/~t_ta~t;/tt~~/;tt_ttri~/a~~/f~t~t;/t~_t~~~t;_J
tt/t~/t~~~~~~ri~~~/t~it/~~mm~t~tiX/X~ri~/~~~/a~~/t~ritri;
t~mitnj//~~w~y~t'/~~~/t~/t~~/X~W//iy~ta~;/~;~_tti/~t
;~tt~~ri~tri~/t~_t~~rittaX/~t~~~tt~,/t~~/~t~~~~t~/~t
~~~~~tri;/t~rit~t~/~/~/~/mtX~~/t~/t~~/ri~tt~/a~~/~/~/~
~tX;_/t~/t~~/~~~t~J/ari~/t~~/XatK/~f/i~/~a_tf~~~t
t~~t~~~~tat~l/t~t_/_tt~/~~~X~/~~/~~t~/~~tta~~~/t~t
~fftt~/~~~/a_/~pp~~~~/t~/t~tatX/~_;j//~fftt~/~~~/~~~X~
aXt~/tt~at~/t~w;t/t~~att_/~~/t~~/a~~at~rit/'j~j~j/ari~
t~~/~ttl/~atK/w~t~~/xt~~/t~/t~~/~~tt~l/t~~t~f~t;'/tt/t~
t~t~mm~~~~~/t~at/t~t~/~att~X/~~/~Xat~~/t~/t~~/~fttt~
~~mm~tttaX/Xa~~/~~~/~at~i~tlj It is aX~~ recommended
that buffering measures be employed in the development
of this property, including vegetative screening and
directed lighting. Furthermore. the land use and
zoninq of this parcel shall remain consistent with a
stipulation and aqreement that resulted from a previous
court decision.
Included within Exhibit "A" are the Final Judgement for Action
No. 73-579, Ordinances No. 73-7 and 73-11, and other legal
documents referenced above and in the Final Judgement. It should
be noted that the Final Judgement for Action No. 72-C-6624, which
is referenced in the attached Final Judgement, was not included
due to its similarity to the attached Final JUdgement.
4
06,'21/94 11;25 FA,t 407 .155 3963
....... ..
APPRAISER
~002
. '11ie City of
!Boynton 'Beacft.
/",.O'i"!r~1-
I~" 't;]'
It.':., J It",
" 1/~~,
.,/.'.... '_".,'r;'.:"
'~/j :.00:-:;,;),"
~y.... :r-ne'DiJ'Mtmmt
100 ~ ~Il tJjU1tfL IJlJ1itfial'd
!t.O. ~jl0
'&ytttt" /fJuJi, :I"''''''' JJ-1:ZS.DJlO
(4071 i'30,7J!I(), :J5I.X.. (40;') rJ8.14~ .1Anuary 13. 1992
M~. T1na ~ld~n. SPUC1~4i$t
palm B~,ch CQUfity Prop~.ty Appraiser's otfice
301 N. Olive ~vBnU8
w".-t: i'a:'ll\ Beo.<;h, n, 33<1.0..
RZ .. ZON%NlJ ON GOMM1l'.IlC'II\L 'ltOl'n.1"! 1\." lWNTEH' S R.UN PlJ\NNBtl UNt'r
nB"lfo.oPXl$NT All or JANUAJl.Y 1, 1t1U.
Deial;' iUI ~ GoldAI\!
In reDPQnBe to your r4~.5t for IhfQrmatlon r.g8rdin~ tne current
aQnin~ QR ~he above r~ter.n~e~ ~rop.rty, I am prov141og yoU With
aft ~ndi~.:ion of thA cu~r.nt ZQninw, 1ncluding an ~lan8tion Of
a.veral iaBueejevents wntc~ n6V$ had, &Q~ c~~tlnue to have, an
impact on the land use and zouiQ~ on th~. p~ope~ty. Tho~.
i8au~./ev~nts are j~m.r1zed ~.lQW;
1) 1'be Cj.tT'l!l C>:>llll;l:>"h..ns1ve PllUl was a.(\opted on NovllJll.tler 7,
1S9~. The new tutu.~ Land Use Map, ~~~cb was adopted 88
p&rt of the COMP~~n.n.iv. plan, cha.nqa4 the .and u.e
cl..lJiUC:llti",~ of e1l1,e .,.Qpe.t.y tralll LOl:'1I1 aetllU COIIllllflre1al
t~ OffteD Cc~~.~c~~l. The currunt ~Q~inq on this property,
e-3 eo~unity Comm~~e~~l, will ..main unt~l the zoning Map
is gfficially cha~g44 as pArt of tbe $ubaequent proceduree
to i.pl..ant th~ eompr$henaiV6 rlan.
3)
~) 'l'hie pi:'opect:y wa" t:hll! sul:l~ ..<::1: of .. l!l13 r~nal. Jud;ellent r
.n~ ~O~ several yee~~ hed b~.n 1nee.~r.ted to restrict this
pl:'Qperty's zon1ni ~o tn.e v~1Qh wa. ~n ~ffect ~ Nov.mber of
."~. sub8~q~.nt to tbe aa9pt1oft 0: ~. Comp..~.n.1v. ~~an,
ye~ prio~ ~~ ~e r~%onin9 ol thie prop.tty, the owne.. Q%
t~$ .ubjeot p~o~erty ~e~~e8t.d thftt the land Qas be ..v.rte~
back t~ tocal R~t~~l Co.~erci&l, a~ offic. C~$rciAl 1~4
~.. i. ineonsiatent with the Vinal Judiement that they
b.lteVQ etill 9ove~s this p~opeTtf.
Jon Juae 18, 199. the C1ty co~ia.lcn WAS pre..nt6~ with this
, roequ",.t fot an am..nl3zngnt to the :rl.\~II.. LenCl Ill.... Hap.'u,~
CO<.lnitllll.t of th.. oon-e.!l'lIdi(l!tin>T 9>>,:l.n1onlll r"garding rohe
current u~lidity of ~b. 1973 r~nal ~Qi&me~t, the City
Commi9sion ~irQetad tho City ~ttornQY to >>aak a De~~ftratorr
Ju~Q.rnent. Thi* setion wa~ filed ift e1rcuit Coyrt ot Pal.
Beach County on June 1~. 1991.
,,1'
"i ~
.!l.tn$1Ua'J rjii.tBway :0 tlit. cjuJf:;l~
.~.~.' 2J.' 94 11 : 26 FAI 407 355 396~
APPRAI SER
raJ 00.1
To: MI Tina Goldin
-2-
D*olZber i3, 1991
sinee the oeclaratory J1.ldqlilDlent was filed., no action hu oceurred
that woul~ ~hanqe either tbB future land use or the zonin9 on
this property, Tberefor~ I conclude by indicating that the
future land uam classification remaine, a. effeetuated. QY tne
COlllPrrillil:ll1v$ plan, of tic. COlllllercid, And ainc@ the zoninQ has
nQt been changed to conform to the 'uture Land Use Map, the zenin;
remaine C-3 Comm~it1 Commarcial (85 indicated ~y tba current
official zonia; Hap).
1 hope I have lIuffic1.ently rOllPonaea. to 1'01.\1' request, Iiowever,
if you a.= in need of additional clarification or in~or.la~1Qn,
please eontaot SaD10r Planner M1eha&1 Rumpf it 7J$.74~O.
Very Truly To~ra.
~~
Cnrlltopher Cutro, AXep
Pl&An1nw n1r8ctQr
CC:mwr
A: ZONHtl'N'1'