The URL can be used to link to this page

LEGAL APPROVAL . STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Helping Floridians create safe, vibrant, sustainable communities" JEB BUSH Governor STEVEN M. SEIBERT Secretary March 7, 2002 Mr. Dick Hudson Senior Planner Dept. of Development City of Boynton Beach P. O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 Dear Mr. Hudson: Thank you for submitting copies of the City's Small Scale Development Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 02-002 on January 15, 2002, for our records. The reference numbers for the amendment is 02S2. The Department will not conduct a compliance review or issue a Notice of Intent regarding the adopted smaIl scale development plan amendments in accordance with procedures contained in Section 163 .3 I 87(3)(a), Florida Statutes. If you have any questions, please contact me for the DR! and Plan Processing Section at (850)922-1767 Sincerely, a.~~h. D. Ray Eubanks Community Program Administrator DRE\lw cc: Michael Busha, Ex. Director Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zoning c i -F ~~ Ii I I ~ I' ! 2&&& SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 Phone' (850) 488-8466/Suncom 278-8466 FAX: (850) 921-0781/Suncom 291-0781 Internet address: http://www.state.fl us/comaffl FLORIDA KEYS Area of Cntlcal State Conc:efn Field Office 2796 ().oerseas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon, Florida 33050-2227 GREEN SWAMP Area of Critical State Concern Field Office 205 East Main Street, Suite 104 Bartow, Florida 33830-041 e STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Helping Floridians create safe, vibrant, sustainable communities" JEB BUSH Governor STEVEN M. SEIBERT Secretary March 7, 2002 Mr. Dick Hudson Senior Planner Dept. of Development City of Boynton Beach P. O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 Dear Mr. Hudson: Thank you for submitting copies of the City's SmaIl Scale Development Plan Amendment adopted by Ordinance No. 02-002 on January 15, 2002, for our records. The reference numbers for the amendment is 02S2. The Department will not conduct a compliance review or issue a Notice of Intent regarding the adopted small scale development plan amendments in accordance with procedures contained in Section 163.3 I 87(3)(a), Florida Statutes. If you have any questions, please contact me for the DR! and Plan Processing Section at (850)922-1767. Sincerely, a.~~ D. Ray Eubanks Community Program Administrator DRE\lw cc: Michael Busha, Ex. Director Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Michael Rumpf, Director of Planning & Zoning 'i" Ii , ' " i ,'. ~. f. ,1. , ,L.t~~J-'f'(~~.~lU...H"~),,~rr-..T I ----- 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD. TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 Phone: (850) 488-8466/Suncom 278-8466 FAX: (850) 921-0781/Suncom 291-0781 Internet address: http://www.state.fl us/comaffl FLORIDA KEYS Area of Critical State Concem Field Office 2796 CNel$eas Highway, Suite 212 Marathon, Florida 33050-2227 GREEN SWAMP Area 01 Critical State Concern Field Office 205 East Main Street, Suite 104 Bartow, Florida 33830-4641 ~,\~.YO" ~ - -~- ~-..".-~... -..... .. c7 o -'-:"'-, . ..,-,' ).."" ,.- <vV 'ON €> DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT Planning and Zoning Division . Building _ Planning & Zoning - Occupational Licenses . Community Redevelopment February 8, 2001 Mr. D. Ray Eubanks, Community Program Administrator Department of Community Affairs Division of Community Planning 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Fl 32399-2100 Re: City of Boynton Beach 02-S2 Krispy Kreme (LUAR 01-008) Dear Sirs: Please find enclosed required documents on the above-referenced, adopted small-scale amendment processed in accordance with Subsection 163.3187(1)(c)2., Florida Statues. The size of this amendment is 0.62 acres. With the adoption of this amendment the cumulative total of acreage to date for the 2002 calendar year is 9.46 acres. Enclosed is Ordinance 02-002, reflecting approval by the City Commission on February 5,2002, the publication notice, an updated land use map with the boundaries and location ofthe subject property in relationship to the surrounding street and thoroughfare network, and the completed RPM-BSP-Small Scale-I form. If you have any questions, please contact me at 561- 742-6260. Respectfully submitted, ~// Dick Hudson Senior Planner Cc: Treasure Coast Regional Planing Council South Florida Water Management District Florida Department of Transportation Florida Department of Environmental Protection OLH \\Ch\MAIN\SHRDA TAIPlanningISHARED\WP\PROJECTS\kri:ipy krernc\LUAR\DCA adoption letter dot City of Boynton Beach. 100 East Boynton Beach Blvd.. P.O. Box 310 Boynton Beach, FL 33425-0310 Phone: (561) 742-6260 . Fax (561) 742-6259 . www.ci.boynton-beach.f1.us ORDINANCE NO. 02- OOa... AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, REGARDING PROPERTY LOCATED SmITH OF BOwrON BEACH BOULEVARD, APPROXIMATELY 1,500 FEET EAST OF NW 7TIl STREET; AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-~8 BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF tHE COMPREHENSNE PLAN OF THE CITY BY ADOPTING THE PROPER LAND USE OF PROPERTY MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREINAFTER; SAID LAND USE DESIGNATION IS BEING CHANGED FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO LOCAL RETAIL CO:MMERCIAL (LRC); PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND AN EFFECTNE 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: Section I: 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 Moderate Density Residential (City). Said land is more particularly described as follows: A :to.62 acre parcel, described as: All of Lots 10, 11, 32, the west 15.00 feet of Lot 12 and all that portion of Lots 8, 9,19 and the west 15.00 feet of Lot 7 lying south of State Road 804 right-of-way, all of Block 2, LAKE BOYNTON ESTATES PLAT I, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 32 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. Section 2: That any maps adopted in accordance with the Future Land Use Element shall ! be amended accordingly. Section 3: All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Section 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 5: This Ordinance shall become effective 31 days after adoption, unless challenged. If challenged, it becomes effective upon the issuance of a fmal order finding it in compliance. FIRST READING this ~ day of Jo..nu.o......,--' 2002. SECOND, FINAL IffiADING and PASSAGE this _ day of , 2002. CITy::r:;;;r' F~ORlDA ~/:i4? ~ ~ ;;;;::. 'ssio~er b_ c-~~ Commissioner ATTEST: .~ Cit Clerl\'\l1I1I1I11 ~)i~~'III&"" ,,~-<, "_,... 0,_ ~ ~ ~~ ,,~"ED., '7 ~ s:c~me Krispy~me ~ ~ m lit \:; -'8 .......'- ::u.t .""1: = ;i. 0 \-; n.(f} I ~ =: ~ "., l:..-J.l ~ .:::t ~ 7', -, 0" A- ~ ~ 'X/ .~"4._'~" 0'- ~ ~ a ~\,: .ff '11/ ~,,~ 1J10WlllH\\\\\ .. ........ LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT "Alf \ II i I . ~ .~: H II: .;.;:..... I I lD , ) H n:: ~ m .;, TON I I 400 o 400 800 1200 Feet ... - .--.... -.-- - Z -! m ;;0 ~ ~ m <.0 c..n . 00 SMALL SCALE DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL FORM 1. Name of Local Government City of Boynton Beach Person Completing this form Dick Hudson Phone number 561-742-6264 Name of Newspaper that notice of small scale was published The Palm Beach Post Date Publication Noticed December 16 and December 26,2001 (Please attach copy of notice) 2. Number of acres of small scale development amendments contained in package: a. Within Urban Infill, Urban Redevelopment or Downtown Revitalization as defined by Section 163.31, FS 0 b. Within Transportation Concurrency Exception Area pursuant to Section 163.31,FS 0 c. Within Regional Activity Centers or Urban Central Business Districts pursuant to Section 380.06(2)(e), FS 0 d. Outside categories a, b, c 0.62 3. Cumulative total number of acres of small scale development amendments for the calendar year: a. Categories listed in Item 2 a, b, c. above 0 b. Categories listed in Item 2 d and above 9.46 4. Total number of acres of small scale development amendments in this package that are located within a coastal high hazard area as identified in the comprehensive plan 0 Pursuant to Rule 9J-11.015(2), Florida Administrative code, this form must be mailed with all small scale development amendments as defined by Section 163.3187(1 He), Florida Statutes to: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS BUREAU OF STATE PLANNING PLAN PROCESSING SECTION 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 (904) 488-4925 \\CH\MAIN\SHRDAT A\PlANNING\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\KRISPY KREME\LUAR\SMALL SCALE FORM.DOC THE PALM BEACH POST Published Daily and Sunday West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida PROOF OF PUBLICATION , BEACH mthority personally appeared Kevin Austin, who on oath says that he Ig Manager, Recruitment of The Palm Beach Post, a daily and ished at West Palm Beach in Palm Beach County, Florida; that the sing, being Notice in the matter Krlspv Kreme-Land Use I in said newspaper in the issues December 16, 26. 2001 the said The Post is a newspaper published at West Palm Beach, in said orida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously each County, Florida, daily and Sunday and has been entered as second ost office in West Palm Beach, in said Palm Beach COWlty, Florida, for 1 preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; s that shelhe has neither paid r promised any person, firm or nt rebate, commission or re d fo purpose of securing this ,tion in the said n spal' . . before this 26th day o~em, bJ AD. 2001 n / (]v " (Vi 1 r Produced Identification ,duced i"''''~ KAREN M McLlNTON Jl;fI MYCOMMISSJON " CC979669 ~..# "'-tQ'I"'P!J." EXPIRES:NO'Il~,2()()4 :~3-NGT.A.AY FLNotaryService&Bonding.Inc. ,~ .r I'\; .J ~ -J ...'d OZ'1':::O :'J u v.... I _:):.,.1; _ J~';-::"-~'i' ',~ ...::.c 1._ '" - . ,,- _ _!.-\..!..l ~J ~J~iJ,\l::- NO. 360832 NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING NOTICE OF LAND USE AMENDMENT NOTICE OF REZONING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning ond Development Boord of TH CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA wilr conduct 0 PUBLIC HEARING 0 Wednesdoy, December 26, 200 1 ot 7:00 p.m. in the CITY HAll COMMI: sro~ CHAMBERS, 100 East Boynton Beach Boulevard to consider this reque: submitted by Scott Barber and Gee & Jenson on behalf of Kri!py Kreme ( South Florido llC. The City Commission of THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACI- FLORIDA. wil( 01,0 hold PUBLIC HEARINGS to conside, this r'!<lue,t on Wedne' doy, Jonuory 2, 2002 and T uesd~, Jonuory 15 2002, eoch ot 7;00 p.m" ~ as soon thereafter os the agenda permits at the CITY HAll COMMtSS10l' CHAJv\BERS, 100 East Baynton Beach Boulevard. The request is described a follows: LOCATION; Four parcels all being south of Boynton Beach Boulevor. and flaving a mailing address of 633 NW 1- Avenue 3015 South Ocean Blvd., Apt 4H. J 50 1 NW 2nd Ave nue and 3015 S. Ocean Boulevard, No. 404. REQUEST: Amend the Comp.rehensive Plan Future land Use Map: From - Medium Density Residential (9.86 du/cc) To . locol Reteil Commerciat REQUEST; Rezone: From. Duplex ResidentiollR-21 To . Neighborhood Commerciol(C-21 PROPOSED USE: fast food resrourant with drive thru LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A +/~.62 acre f'Orcel, described os: All of lob 10, 11el 32, the W1SSI 15.00 feet of Lot 12 ond 011 that portion 0 lob B, 9, 19 on the west 15.00 feet of lot 71)'ing south of Stole Roce B04 right-of-way, 011 01 BIocIt 2, LAKE BOYNTON ESTATES PLAT 1 occording to the Plat thereof os 'ecorded in Plat Book 13, Poge 32 of th, Public Records of Polm Beach County, Florida. :-411=1; -1tH Location Map I ; \ ~i ~\~~I i~ ,J HUJ .~ UI i III k I ',I I I 1;",";11'1 I, , This request can be viewed between the hours of8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. c the City of ~ton Beach P1anning and Zoning Division, 100 Easf Boynlor Beach Boulevard. All interested parnes are notified to ap~r at said hearings in person or b) attorney and lie heard. Any e&rson w~o decides to appeal any decision of thf Planning and Development Boord or City Commission with resp&q to an} matter considered at these meetings will need a record of the proceedings ane for such purpose may need to en.$ur8 that a verbatim record of the proceeding: i.$ mode, which record includes the te.$timony and evidence upon which !fi{ oppeol is to be based. The City shall fumi.$h appropriate auxiliary aids and service.$ where necessof') to afford on individual with a disability an equal opportunity to participate ir and enjoy the benefits of a servke, P!PQ.ram, or activity .conducted by rtie City Pleo... contact Potricia Tucker 1561)742-626B, of leost lwenty-four (241 hou" p'rior to the program or activity in order for the City to reasonably accommo cote your requ8.$t. . CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH PlANNING AND ZONING DIVISION . 1561) 742-6260 I PUBUSH: The Post December 16, 2001 000 December 26, 200 1 ': .:'! lil'j~'tP . '-I M ' . .'. .~ I .' .....,,:::. I~~' l,iH.n.~.~.H.~mw':~'~~'~~'~~'~~:J~0.!!.~!.!~~::::' ~;:~;',~,\~:;..<~~ '4'1 ~':;':...<f'~!1 'I' ~I. . . .. ....~. :".;" ".'.; <...:.>,r.'....:.... .cr. ":";::'.:.:..:.:.'::.:.~:f.:.' '. ":-:-:':';;';';';';.:.:..' ;.;.:.;.; ;U '. '. ~"r.. ............ ............ ........... .... \ ' "!!'!'!'!'!'!'!',!,X,!,!!,!,!,!,!t!,!~, .., '"" . I'T'".. _, R :~'~'~IIJ.I:l!I!~!!l:I!:::ll!!lil:llil!i!:!:!~:!.. ~i: I . ~ ' I ~:::;::;;:::'l~:::;:::::::;:::;::::::::::::: : ,;,.11.-..~ :ri. /:illl'-~" ~: ~;!m:m:!:!!i(mm}mmm!}! . .. . F' . II ~\ ., ~, ~:~~;:;:::;~:::::::;:::;~:;::.::::~.:;;;;::~- '.' ':')h'~~.:-rJ :-::}"L., Ij :,':~. I;~ , .-. ";" r.I...'T""_-1!/ i 'H,;\',iIH.1::r>/?il ~:<l '::IiH'! ?', ~ ~ ' .: . r..jr ^, :.~ .~; i \':;:;;;'\, · .> '<f '~E ':>1:1 '~Q~:.,; .. ....;:~ ~";'T":~ .' -.' ..._~, ::\o';':::::':'l;::.:tl::;~.. rnl~ i, I :1. 1"1' . , " ..:....:.:.:-::.:.::.: :.: i \ t.1 ';" 'f' ~,\'j:J:) HI I:::Rffi'['1~li":r1f.r._J~,.,_..: ~:.~~""':~;::l :':::7' ' . ZfL . .... ........:..,..~.;.......-~e....,. .. _ ;::8~:;i;t:"::l>:;::::.:::-:::.:. " ~-, t ' , , ;::~:::::'::*:~:.t:t;::::::;~:::~,., '* ',':i;w;"""~""""""""'" . q I"' " "";~ ,. .' <c_ ',L,~\!~/m;mm%:j :,:._~.i \1\'1 L ~..~ :::::::~ -' ",' ", ~;~::;;::l ~:;:~:::~~:::i!?:li:::~:::;:::F: .I[ :::::t:: , '. .\:. ',". -..:- ',',"" ;;:::::~b :;;:::':.:m....J';::J:::.:::::::..f. II:'.:'.:. 'I i .....~..r ;," 1,,",\ -'.' I., ,i1.r.,....Ii'..1 ,....:.......lot-.. '." ...~.:"'.:....1I:-. . . . C ' "'. .... · . ""., '.. ..,.....,. . I,....j \ . ..; .' ',' .. , ' ," .,' ..:..;..,.:.:. :::..::.::.:.:.... .:..:.:.....:.j:.:i. ........ 'I' , " -, ,....... .-;_;,0. 1!"'t-~~ '.'~....!'. ..0. ........ 'C" ,..>'. "', '. "...... /. .'. .....:::1........\... .'. '. ::;:::;;, ", '., ".' i' : .' " , ,'>t;: _ ; .::<.:.:.:-...;:;::;;:~;::::: ., ':':':": " , , , ',." . ,. , ,'. ;..:.'.-.-..' :~:.:..:~:'-:'!.:..:.:.:....:.:.;. \\j :1;'}{;\.:\~1?r~'rrW: "~li!l~mmf~\~tum: ... :.: \ I.'lj.;-': ........, '\ " \ .......... ..'(. "'. ,..<...<.""",.~. ... \ " ::;:!~ :,)',h"':' ;, ;" '.: ':":;J:::::~~:~r::::.;:.:::. .,~~::~:(:::~:::::~:.;::::~:?~: . I .... , ., ,'.'. G'. . . .... .'. ....~.. ;~~ ','.', "",.'. . . .:~. "'F~. : ,;'':..0 . ~~.. \' ':, .........---;;;..;. :":..:.:':.:1*";'~"'" ";,,~;:.:.:..;.:.:,.:. . . .. I[ ", ':..... ,.10......., - -,.... ......t~~..:........~\.... ....~." .:-:-;-.....:.......-.1. . 1 ~;t:::::., ,.';', ':{:;::;::::::;:~t;::l~::!::.:::~t::...ii.~~::;., "':':;':::!;~::!l.: ':". ., 1\ ~...'1' ;';-~~. "'::':':: ' ",.' I:?:....t>(v..~:.:...;..f.:.:l~".: "X:'. ..'!!i........ . \ ~ ' r :H\ ;, :::,~:~~~:~;:~:.::~:~:i~i~;j:h--~~:n~~:::;:~~l:;.:::::-:, .::~:~:: it: .\~...'..... '~.' .... , " '. ';;'" . .... . j :r... .... . '.', . ....... . . . ',-::-.r'll '. _. ... '... :-:.:.:. ')lot;.;.. "~'l';-: .' ":';'~~::'~::.":'\~:: :,:;:~~ ~,~ . .' I'Q..:.: I : ....:is:.:....;..:.:.., ;'.~1..;.~. :~'.:-- .'. ..:...., ,'. ", . i '.' :::,~ ;..,;~;r.,:.:t:.::::Jl';:~:.:.:..' "';';"::;:. . "::.:::::.' .:~:::,:\. It....: \ . i~: :;::; I ll::iili~:;::;::;~:~::: ,1:;:;;;::-:; :~':~:::i::~:::f:)!~::\ i:: . W""'; :pi\ I !:~~Hfu;ilii:;i~j~iHijH;::t~H~iiJ .:I:;;~.Mili;i~~~.~.H~~:~h · "~.< \~\j,ii:N ::~:::: I, 1::.::~:"';.~.'>>:::::.:~~:.1::':::::~::~~ \.-:::'\t:;:t::.::~~:::: :;. '. . \\\ ':~~:::; ;::~~~~:;:::::;i!j;:if.::.~~~ .~~;:~::.::: :i:.~ :;\ , ~~ '\ \\;i~:;.: . . .. ro.... ....~. 't>. . ~:;.ill::. . ~. . ...... ~.... ~ ~ :.:.:.: .:~~~~..:.:;::...:.j..:::*'=...:.: .:..~.'.::.t'1'IT. .,:. .~.:':~~. ~ I \ \"~ ':.r:..:v:~.:.........!..;:..~;:.:..:. '.... ..... ..*:...\.....~. '.:;l:.I.:....:..:.:..:~.:.~;,~,:....~,,;,.: . ,.,,!. .~. .:.!.:.: .: 1.;1$, . ......... . ".'I:...l;}~-~....~ ,:...,;~~~. .... ....,.. [ II ........ :. :::::::::'::;:;:1::,;':'::;:::':::: t:..:"\.... ::::::.;;.:;:1: :: , {/ ::;l:::::;~~~:;:::::;::;i;;':::y'::::'_:_',,,,!;::::-:,~~,:::~t ;;3:::fu.';;;~:::.;:~ I I \' ;7, // ,....:...~It~.....~,. ......., .....,. - j......... ....".....--- ~'W... . ............ \ " ' ':<"';':::':':*::'::1':'::" .,.'.' ,,,,;:,,, .;.:.: ~~w.:::...::: ::;~.:.:::. .( !:' I' , ~ !:l~~~;!*=:a:l;~~:~i~r:~~~:m::8m;, ;~:l; ~~~1:il~;:1~:f::~1W::::' .' .. A ~/~#;'A" ;;':':'i;~:"~:':"';'.:';':'M'~::,:.,,:,:,: ................ , . . . 1'/7] . .t!.:.... . . .:.:.:.:.:\t.........~..... . . -II . , . ........ . ;,~ <~;"~~ ~~....,.~;.~ r--.i ~Ji~~_..:-/!..~U'-., ,.7 t 1 "ll, 'I ' ,i [1 ,l ,:l;'~'~(:"j L::,;:~.:L j! "t i \."., II ,.....-....,.....,.., 1 t j.: ' " l " '," . '" ' i '" " ;J .......;. ...........,,.......... '-" /-,....., -" , , 'I ',\ ~"'''' . , ',MAP KEY \_.. . ;! _ . .._.<- _ ,H . RESIDENTIAL'] ,. . ' ,~ . 1 , '. .,,-;-;. ,,~- i~',' EJ IL_PW DENSrfV '(LOR>:!.;" \' ,.J . .... I . '-:" ,.. \ 1." MAX 4.84'b.u;JA'CRE:, , ' . ii. ....... '. -_~____.___'~..:.....c: n~_~~_-,~""'r~I"-: ~.,- ~:::::~ ,'MODERATE DENSITY."(MODR), . "':"-"'~~"'.:_" ,'- I," ,'.. .~_t::"~:\J_ -~.. " 'MAX 7.26 D.U,/ACRE' \'~",.., "'-,_..____ ,.__,__ __ _.. .... ',,'~..i';, "f}! !M'EDIUM DENSITy'..;(MeQ.R)" \....., ,- . '.' .', L'_'iJ: , . "'MAX 9 68-0 U IAC1=lE . ',-.", ; . .." .. ~ I" .... . .' __n.'..L,. ";<"_ , . '., ~,>_:~'--:-;~f"'., ' . j' f '',l '9Iil :~HIGH DEN$trY-:::(HDR):-" ,: r ' .', ,I. ",' 'i~ '. M:A.X10,S'D;0;7A'CR(':'i -',,';: ~~ ~~ ' .,~ ," \:,. j'~.,' I, .,~l ;, c::J i; ~l','~ j / I TT'J.\- -;'--.., J . . '~;CALc"~ :::...., I -1 r-_ ""'1 ." I . , - I; -- I ---/ ' '11;'----, Ji ' I'J"I,iI > ~~'i;: ~-::--' 00'0 / ! , U .11 ')--, I I -/-i, t,,! " . 11 i' 'II I' ,"~" ' . I.' ~" -I : ".;,;e\.:l..... _ Ii ; ,I I .-_"(I'I;, I ,I.! ' i; ; 1. F f ii' ,I i' I '. ,~. JI . K. I I ~ i,~ , },' I "'-I I '.' l~ !~I' - i -:;t.;' ,.1 11-------: '>1 ;, - :\1 i , iI " ',----J r,.'1 1\ I !i I -' I " " /~/ /-/ I i ;----( ,,-~ .' ~ COMMERCIAL", \ , 'LOCAL RETAIL I (LRC)'; , I ", I '~ . i " . ~ \ . . co' -. ~.,.--,' _..,..'", -- .,.......r:. ; IINDUSTRJAl1<(,n\ : ,L.:.;':_.\"; ~ '. n /, K::sI I" (' , ' , ~. --~-, --- ": -:~,.1 ;,:.., ~\., 0, T, H E'R ", i ;,,', \:1'_'; " ,'\ : i ..,~: - . -..:= -' C "-{i"; ',>, 1, "v. .;. "~, '. [;i~ \~~~~~,~~~~~~._._.-tL,~'L~~>~""\;) X:;" ~h:'~'';;1''RE'C:RE:'A'rlONAL;lfR)'L';:' ",;/ J ~'..~ ~ . _\~.,:; ':' .'~,.: ,~~.~-~-:/~~~~:~~t~tJ';',,":,".'.~;~:~~:::.t~ '" ,/ ~fl10:jj," lB.USr.tc_&::I'R:rVA'TEf . ,:':(p'P G.i). " ;.- . ,.<. ". ".-. . .,';. - ,>,',---:"::"~-:~-,T;-':;:>;",.--.~-~"'- 1 : ,.' ;: ',.'cf6VERNf,ifENTAC/fNSTIYD:rTONAU,f ~\~~-~;::.:.::=:.::::-- .~ ---- ":~_:-;:~':.~c-+?t~~;:.: . "~.,..j:. " , ~ >'. MIXED USE" .. (M~j,j}-:,.. -:-:. '>', . ...; r _ . '--:-.' < ;-~:-~~:~'!~;:':---~ -~C~.:c' ::~}-~~ .,,~~,1'~\~ ;(ti:-~~-':.'T ~..-.~ i DIFFE RENTLANI>_U SE_C AI.EGQRY...:..T.I:lAN_.TJ:lAJ":~:H9W.Nj I ':. ," *." ," ~ .. , ,.~~,..". . ' ."..'.,,' r:~ ~~~f~. ~A~~CIE~S-:' (~S IN b IC, ~ T~ I)~B.Y :~~~~:~~tl~~l' !.IErUS E._At-ULD E'lELO,E'MEN LCOMP_U ES .,vVn.ft::',J.l"S,F:L': ':':. I n ~ ~ ';"Ri hlON S' A'r'{D" R"E'C'O M BIN A T I o'rf 6fj)ARBffs1.' '. , ',f ;,1 "-,' - /' , ,'--rr-J t,L-LL-i: 7 , 1/ , II I i , I r I I ' , I... "," " I: ~'~,:. ...i. ~""""":-", )',",'. ~. :;~: ~ r,,o(. . t" " ..,~ ~'" ~~", t.;::::. lx.- 1',,,. ~ ~2::: ~;; K:<' R:,,' 0' lJLf,: (~., ~:? . ,,, ~; ':' ~/. ..' K~\ t' \ (<", V'" V f~> ~:",' . ~.('. ('" (< K '.\:' ,.. ~-. (" ,", f f/ fl. e ~! ~ ~ ( ~, ~ ~~.~ i, " i' il: > '. ~ ~ 1 I j ORDINANCE NO. 02- 003 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR REZONING BY KRlSPY KREME; AMENDING ORDINANCE 91-70 OF SAID CITY BY REZONING A TRACT OF LAND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRlBED HEREIN, FROM DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL (R-2) TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-2); PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, SEVEEABILITY, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida has adopted Ordinance No. 91-70, in which a Revised Zoning Map was adopted for said City; and WHEREAS, the Scott Barber of Gee & Jensen, as agent for the owner of the roperty more particularly described. hereinafter, has heretofore filed a Petition, pursuant o Section 9 of Appendix A-Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances, City of Boynton Beach, lorida, for the purpose of rezoning a certain tract ofland consisting of :to.62 acres, said and being more particularly described hereinafter, from Duplex Residential (R-2) to eighborhood Commercial (C-2); and WHEREAS, the City Commission deems it in the best interests of the .nhabitants of said City to amend the aforesaid Revised Zoning Map as hereinafter sct orth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION F THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORlDA. THAT: Section 1: The following described land, located in the City of Boynton Beach, lorida as set forth as follows: A :to.62 acre parcel, described as: All of Lots 10, 11,32, the west 15.00 feet of Lot 12 and all that portion of Lots 8, 9, 19 and the west 15.00 feet of Lot 7 lying south of State Road 804 right-of-way, all of Block 2, LAKE BOYNTON ESTATES PLAT I, according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 32 of the Public Records of Palm Beach County, Florida. e and the same is hereby rezoned from Duplex Residential (R-2) to Neighborhood ommercial (C-2). A location map is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part of this rdinance by reference. _~S_'_~._'7"_'~_=."_".~ = ~_,=__. ", __~._____._ ~ 11 1 All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby Section 4: Should any section or provision of this Ordinance or any portion thereof e declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the emainder of this Ordinance. Sectioh 5: This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage. FIRST READING this ~ day of ,J4.r.UA.ry ,2002. SECOND, FINAL READING and P ~SAGE this -.L day of Fe.hf.... If'i' 2002. CIT:l#BE H, FLO;-mA ~/~ ~ ~ ~ssio~er /~~ Co=issioner ~r@ ATTEST: Yn.~ i CI~\\\\ /fit/II. ~ ~"(ON I$(?- %, ~ o..J..,~...-. -1. ~ (Co!$~~l)tlr~"\~\ '" "- fO '''' '" 0 10 .:= ==.Z ,,':= ==,....- ~,::: "'~... __...a I ~ s,,,,,lo;il 'g~' ,:;- ~, ...... s ~ ....,.,.'\ ~ ~ F\..O't' ~ ~/II. \\\."\ l/tliF!III\\\\\\\ LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT "A" ~ r-- l z.. -.:- . ---. .. '-'-. ~ lIJ ~ ~ :i2.~ ;;;:; .!i. l~. -"~. I"""" [g r-- ; ~.. 2g I"""" ~ I:n 'rJH ,.....- rr r--'" FF H.~ J~[i.~.~ I ~ r .H. ,:,.'. 'm ;n ."Fr,..' ...., ~". . 1 "I' '.. L ~ LUT.oo BF:A.l.in DL VI ...J: .~.'- , . . ',' J',~.,..~~,_; 7 i, ''''',l& "'" Z'. lHlt ' ~ UU" t ", .: I J; ..t>J=:,,1 ." . 'I'. I' n: I J:~." . . I.Ph.... J I '. r-:- .' t 1 JJC"f"'S-4<~~ _'. 1 ~. I' 1 1.'1.':'.: r n.I....'.' '. . ':l ':. .'1 ' I I t~' '. ,,Jj '. I . , -'.... },' ,._ . ~II.' C\J'I.'''''~".:;;..: '.' ':';'" .fTi-I . . .[ "'1' I' . I' I'., 1 I I l I I "', ..., 'L I I I- _ '. , ~ r-il~ -. I - rl I ~J ~. o .:<J ~ <l!.)'. " -z:,. ,~" '-u- I \ JfJ I...~l\ ..' -U U ';-.; 'I 'A ~'2" ~ ~ ;~~/~. ~'" '; . . \e; '. . .,.,....M . . . ., :~::':'~ :Tj' J. ' . ..". _' I :, 4pQ o 1200 Feet 400 ;',-.;. . . BOO Z -I m :;0 (j) -I ~ m CO <.l1 \ , 00 I MEETING MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING HELD IN COMMISSION CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 26, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M. Present Lee Wische, Chairman Steve Myott, Vice Chairman Robert Ensler Mike Fitzpatrick Woodrow Hay Maurice Rosenstock Edward Currier, Alternate David Tolces, Assistant City Attorney Mike Rumpf, Planning and Zoning Director Dick Hudson, Senior Planner Lusia Galav, Principal Planner Absent William Cwynar I. Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Wische called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. II. Introduction of the Board Chairman Wische introduced the Board members, Assistant City Attorney David Tolces, members of the Planning and Zoning Department staff, and the Recording Secretary. He also introduced Alternate, Mike Friedland, who was in the audience. III. Agenda Approval Motion Mr. Rosenstock moved to approve the agenda as written. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that carried unanimously. IV. Minutes Approval Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve the minutes of the November 27,2001 meeting as written. Mr. Ensler seconded the motion that carried unanimously. V. Communications & Announcements A. Planning and Zoning Report Mr. Rumpf reported on the following action taken by the City Commission at the December 4, 2001 meeting: -l r' 1.;1 I' n no --I~f- ~ r l. ,:'"l 1[: II ('i' I...' L. - -.---' . ',~ Ii , " '1nnl I, !/' Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26,2001 1) Calvary Chapel Site Plan approval 2) Calvary Chapel annexation approval 3) Bible Church of God conditional use approval for daycare center Action taken at the December 18, 2001 meeting: 1) 2) 2"d reading of ordinance on land use plan amendment and rezoning for the elementary school on South Congress Avenue 1st reading of ordinance on annexation land use and rezoning for Calvary Chapel project Assistant City Attorney Tolces administered the Oath to all persons who would be testifying. VI. Old Business A. Public Hearing Land Use AmendmentlRezonina 1. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: KRISPY KREME Scott BarberlGee & Jenson Krispy Kreme of South Florida, LLC South side of Boynton Beach Boulevard (SR804) approximately 1,500 feet east of NW 7'" Street, opposite the intersection of Boynton Beach Boulevard and West Industrial Avenue Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation on a 0.62 acre parcel from Medium Density Residential (9.68 du/ac) to Local Retail Commercial and; to rezone from Duplex Residential (R-2) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-2). KRISPY KREME Scott Barber/Gee & Jenson Krispy Kreme of South Florida, LLC (see above) Request Conditional Use/Site Plan approval For a 4,680 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-through feature. Mr. James Miller, appearing on behalf of the RHS Corporation, asked for a point of clarification on a procedural problem before beginning the praceedings. Mr. Tolces stated that Mr. Miller could raise the point during the public hearing. Description: Conditional Use/Site Plan 2. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: 2 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26. 2001 Dick Hudson, Senior Planner, summarized the staff comments on the project. He noted that the project was unique in that it was being assembled from property owned by six individuals and would be developed as a fast food restaurant with a drive-through feature. Some of the property is vacant land covered by two land use classifications and two zoning districts. Part of the property is occupied by a two-family duplex structure. Mr. Hudson pointed to the location of the subject parcels on a map displayed on the wall. He advised of Staffs determination that the project was consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan, will not create additional impacts on the infrastructure that have not been anticipated in the Comprehensive Plan, will be compatible with adjacent land uses, and will contribute to the overall economic development of the City. Staff recommends approval of the project with the acknowledgment that buffering and other design improvements to maximize compatibility with adjacent uses and traffic-related comments will be applied at time of site plan/conditional use approval. If the Board wishes to add any additional conditions, they will be included as Exhibit C when the project goes forward to the City Commission. Michael Weiner, Attorney for Dynamic Doughnuts Florida Realty, Inc., stated that he understood that they would be addressing item 6.A(1) and 6.A(2) at the same time. Mr. Weiner noted that the combined staff comments amounted to 20 different criteria against which the project was measured, and after all of Staffs deliberations, the conclusion was that the project was appropriate and would actually better the community, Mr. Weiner introduced the representatives who might be speaking, including Bruce Chatterton, an expert in land planning and Peter Russo, an architect with Metro Design, He submitted Mr, Chatterton's resume for the record. Also present were Gene Battagliano, Vice President of Construction; Steven Gaosch, Site Plan; and the property owners: Mr. Mannino, Mr. Vultaggio, Mrs. LoPiccolo, and Mr. & Mrs. Sentimanat. Mr. Weiner commented that there were three considerations. The first was a change to the Comprehensive Plan, the second was a zoning change, and the third was a conditional use. Chair Wische asked Mr. Weiner what his position was regarding the twenty Staff comments on item 6.A.(2). Mr. Weiner said they had no problems with Exhibit "C', Conditions of Approval. Mr. Weiner introduced Steven Gaosch, a licensed engineer, to comment on the Site Plan. The Site Plan has a proposed traffic flow into and off the site that meets local and Palm Beach Codes, including the turn lanes and a new traffic light at the entrance that has been aligned to West Industrial Avenue. It features a fifteen-foot ingress lane with a five-foot landscape median and two egress lanes, eleven feet wide each. Their off-street parking and loading zones meet or exceed the City's Code. Their service area is located in the southwest comer of the site and is enclosed by a masonry stucco wall and will be buffered by landscaping. The water and sanitary sewer utility has been verified and proper service is available for the site. Screening and buffering and landscaping has also been considered. To the south and east the residential area is buffered by a three- level system of trees for upper canopy, a six-foot masonry wall for intermediate buffering, and a hedge for lower-level buffering. 3 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26, 2001 The traditional signage and neon lighting has been modified to improve the site and not impact the adjacent areas. The audio portion of the menu board has been turned to face towards the west so it does not impact the residential areas. All required setbacks have been met and the site has 18% of open space. The exterior design has been modified to blend with the surrounding Mediterranean-style influence. Building height is being reviewed to come into compliance with the 25-foot height restriction. They will be employing between seventy-five and ninety persons from the community and will use local service firms for air conditioning, plumbing, and electrical maintenance. Mr. Weiner commented on an obligation on the part of the applicant to put in a street light and left- hand turn lane for nearly $100K in improvements to the intersection. It will now be safer than ever before and is a firm condition of approval. Bruce Chatterton, Chatterton Consulting, stated that his planning analysis revealed that the project was consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and with specific Plan policies. He had read the Land Use element and found the proposal to be directly in keeping with eleven specific Plan policies. The Land Use element addresses the proper pattern for uses and the zoning pattern. To the west of the site there were over 1,300 linear feet of existing C-2 zoning. The existing R-2 zoning was, in his opinion, a left-over from the past that reflected somewhat outdated thinking about zoning. He said this was common all over the state of Florida where there were strip R-2 zoning (duplex zoning) which has been applied in a similar situation. If the R-2 designation remains on the site, there would be more of the same, that is, duplex rentals. In his opinion this provided a poor transition and buffer between Boynton Beach Boulevard and the single-family neighborhood to the south. A better choice would be a C-2 district, which is designed to be compatible with the adjacent residential. Every neighborhood needs an edge that gives it an identity. Only rarely do duplex rentals provide this edge. It is much more common for high quality commercial to form the edge. With generous open space, setbacks, buffer yards, this proposal is an opportunity to better define the edge and improve on the zoning pattern, which is consistent with the Land Use Plan. His opinion as a professional planner is that the proposal is compatible with the surrounding uses and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Weiner noted that he had just been handed a document entitled "Legal Basis to Deny Krispy Kreme Development with Viable Alternative Proposals A & B" submitted on behalf of SOS (Save our Street) by Reginald G. Stambaugh, Florida Bar Board Certified Real Estate Specialist. Mr. Wiener asked and was granted a five-minute time period for rebuttal at the end of the Public Comments section of the meeting. Various Board members expressed serious concern that they had been "blind-sided" by the referenced document and that they did not have enough time to study it. They questioned whether the attorney or Planning & Zoning had sufficient time to study it as well. Assistant City Attorney Tolces advised that he had called Mr. Stambaugh's office earlier in the day and asked him to provide information on the issues that were going to be raised. He also did not receive the document until this meeting began. Later in the meeting Mr. Stambaugh gave a brief presentation of the contents of the document and apologized for the "eleventh-hour" delivery of the document. 4 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26. 2001 Assistant City Attorney Tolces mentioned that the document took issue with the posting requirement, saying that it had not been done properly. He said that the notice requirement only applied to the Site Plan application itself. With respect to the rezoning and the land use amendments, the posting did not necessarily apply. With respect to the Site Plan Issue, he believed there was a posting on the property, as evidenced at least in part by a photograph attached to the document. Michael Rumpf, Planning & Zoning Director, stated that it was the habit of the Planning & Zoning Department to make sure that signs were placed in the vicinity of the project or on the site. Many projects have numerous parcels and their intention is not to post signs on each and every parcel but actually on the property where it gets the greatest exposure to the passing public. The second point in the document was that the application was deficient on its face. Mr. Tolces had not necessarily reviewed the application for the rezoning but the justification may be contained in the application. He deferred to Mr. Hudson or Mr. Rumpf to respond to the justification that was provided. On the third point that the rezoning criteria had not been followed and the citation "Whether the proposed property is physically and economically developable under the existing zoning", he thought this more of a legislative or jUdicial question for the Board to consider in making its recommendation to the City Commission. Mr. Rosenstock wanted to know if there had been a violation as alleged in Mr. Stambaugh's document. Mr. Tolces said that the document had been provided to the Recording Secretary and was included in the record and the Board was free to weigh any evidence or argumenls presented in it. Mr. Stambaugh stated that the document contained argument on facts that had already been submitted. CHAIRMAN WISCHE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. James Miller, on behalf of RHS Corporation, stated that it appeared that the original application had been modified from the one that came before the Board in October. He referred to the letter in the agenda packet that was from the attorney for the Petitioner dated November 21, 2001. He stated that the letter referred to providing modified information pertaining to the applications previously submitted. He referred to the specific changes from the original application. He asked that the Board look to its own regulations, Section 9 of the Administration and Enforcement Comprehensive Land Plan Rezoning, where it stated specifically that the changes on an application cannot incorporate larger changes to zoning of the building nor increase in zoning without having to provide a new application. It specifically provides under that section that the application can be amended by modification if asking for lesser or decreased impacls. In this case, three times the land and another 10% increase in the building were involved. Under these rules this application cannot be considered at this time under these rules but would require the Petitioner to either 1) continue the hearing using the original application as submitted in October or; 2) withdraw the existing application to provide for the fulfillment of all the requirements. When the land size increased, the criteria for the application increased as well. It could not be treated as an existing application. The only justification on file currently is the justification for the 4.26 acres. 5 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach. Florida December 26, 2001 There is no modified justification statement filed in dealing with a larger parcel so it is incomplete on that basis. Also, it does not address the sewer flow and water flow requirements that are required for the larger parcel. The application fails to state the number of employees that would be incorporated in the project, although it was stated at this meeting. Based on all of these criteria, he wanted to know if the Board was treating this as a new apphcalton or a modification of an existing one. If the latter, he believed it would be in contravention to the City's own rules. Mr. Rumpf said that staff accepted the application in existing and revised formats as being sufficient. They do not process applications that they feel are insufficient. In every case the staff conducts a thorough analysis. Staff understands that a new, revised application was submitted. The original applications that were submitted were based upon the zoning map which Staff later determined was inaccurate. They felt that the boundaries had been drawn inaccurately. Upon finding that, Staff advised the Petitioner that the application needed to be revised. New notifications went out to the newspaper and property owners, which accurately reflected the accurate information. Mr. Myott asked for background on Mr. Miller's corporation. He also asked for a summary description of exactly what the problem was concerning this proposal. Mr. Miller stated that his client owns the commercial property to the west. The two parcels to the west, although they are zoned C-2, actually are professional buildings in which there are doctors and dentists as tenants. They shut down at 5:00 p.m. and have very little impact on the residents or property values. This proposal calls for operating a drive-through restaurant which would be open 24 hours a day and would have an impact on the traffic flow, noise, and a detrimental impact to the property values of the adjoining properties. It also does not provide a buffer, as C-1 does, between Boynton Beach Boulevard and the residences that are behind it and to the east. Mr. Myott asked if he was representing the residents who lived nearby and the commercial establishments. Mr. Miller stated that the commercial property owners to the west retained him. They also feel that this piece of property is developable. The residents of the duplex improved their property in 1996 by adding a bedroom and bathroom. In 1998 they added a new fence. In order to change the zoning you have to flnd that it is not consistent; in fact, it is consistent. This leaves the other parcel where you have to ask whether it is buildable or not. Staff recommended in 1994 a plan to buil" a restaurant with different hours and without the drive-through on that particular site without including the additional duplexes. There was no objection made at that time about that type of site. That evidenced to him that the property as it exists is usable and developable without using the duplexes beside it. Mr. Myott thought he was saying that the real problem was that building a fast- food restaurant would reduce the property values to the west. Mr. Miller agreed. When you have a property that has a tax appraised value of S80K and you have a contract in which you are going to pay that property owner S250K for property that is only worth S80K, you can see that there must be a significant increase because of the commercial use. This is counter-balanced by the detriment that the other residents that remain, and aren't getting this benefit, will be bothered by the increased traffic count at all hours and the noise. Mr. Rumpf stated that there was a statement that there was inadequate data analysis when the application was amended and it exceeds one acre. If one reads the 6 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach. Florida December 26,2001 application material requirements, it calls for sewage and impact on public facilities when the project exceeds one acre. The Land Use amendment that this applies to is not in excess of one acre. The portion that is being rezoned is less than that so it is not applicable. Mark Roberts, D,D.S., 650 W. Boynton Beach Blvd., stated that the issue of the amended application had been addressed. He handed out something showing what the law stated and asked the applicant if his attorney's letter was correct when they said it was an amended application. Mr. Weiner's letter clearly indicates that it is an amended application. Based on the fact that it is amended, Dr. Roberts believed they should withdraw their application or proceed with the original application, according to the City's own law. Mr. Myott asked Dr. Roberts what he hoped to gain by having it recognized that the application is amended and have the project postponed another month. Dr. Roberts stated that he had not received the documents from his public record request until late in the day on Friday, December 21, when the City responded with hundreds of pages of documents. He went back to the City on Monday and they were closed. He had no notice of site plan approval until he saw a sign that had been put up over the weekend. He did not have the ability to review the information. He had not had time to hire a professional to determine the differences between the original applications and the amended applications. Since Monday and Tuesday were holidays, he had effectively received less than ten hours' notice. Mr. Rosenstock called attention to the fact that the Planning & Zoning Board was made up of lay people. Even though it was a quasi-judicial Board, they were not attorneys or judges; therefore, if any of the members of the audience, whether pro or con, have technicalities that may be of a judicial nature, there are court reporters in the room that are recording every word that is being said. It is incumbent upon the Board to make a decision based upon the Codes of the City of Boynton Beach as they knew them and as recommended by the Planning & Zoning Staff. Various people have made valid points but let them take that up with the Court system if this project is eventually approved. The Board's job was to determine whether this project meets the criteria of the City's Codes. He suggested proceeding on that basis. Dr. Roberts said that this proposal for a Land Use change was not consistent with the Objective 1.17, 1.196, or 1.17.1 of the Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use Plan states that the City already has enough commercial land that will accommodate all future commercial land with the buildout. The only time you can do a land use change is with minor boundary adjustments, small infill parcels, and commercial uses of highly specialized natures that have special location requirements. Policy 1.196 says the City shall not allow commercial uses unless a particular property is unsuitable for other uses or other geographic needs exist which cannot be fulfilled by the existing commercial. The existing use can be used because there is already a house on it so it is already being used as a residential property. The first requirement that it be consistent with the land use is not met. The second is that in the City's Staff report they show that there are sufficient other properties throughout the City where Krispy Kreme can be built on 7 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26.2001 commercial property. For the Board to grant this, it would be granting Krispy Kreme a special privilege since it was not consistent with the recommendations. Dr. Roberts wished to continue but Chairman Wische asked him to submit anything further to the Recording Secretary for the record. Mr. Myott asked if he felt that the construction of the project would limit the visibility of signage or any other matter relative to his dental practice? Dr. Roberts said he was not opposed to the vacant piece of land being used by Krispy Kreme and felt it was appropriate. He felt it was inappropriate to take an existing residential piece of property and tear it down. He thought that increasing the size of the property would cause additional traffic to the property. Mr. Reginald Stambaugh apologized to the Board for presenting them with information as the meeting was starting. He explained the reasons this had happened. He gave a summary of his arguments. 1) Staff's report said there are alternative sites. 2) He compared this Krispy Kreme site to another Krispy Kreme site to see if Krispy Kreme could use a smaller building. The comparison shows that the Site Plan that Krispy Kreme has on file in the City of Gainesville, where Mr. Stambaugh reviewed their Site Plan application (a copy of which was submitted into the record this evening), has a building with a smaller number of square footage. His point was that there are alternatives. The current scenario looks at the rezoning of two residential properties. They do not need to be made. The square footage requirement is only 1,000 feet less if you consider the commercial in and of itself. Two alternatives would be to: 1) Downsize the Krispy Kreme to be in line with their smaller property in Gainesville and eliminate the drive-through. 2) Just use the vacant property. This would give in excess of 14,000 square feet of land to build on in comparison to the Gainesville property. That is much more than is necessary based on that use. Both of these altematives could be accomplished without tearing down a residential building. He took issue with the testimony given previously that R-2 was a bad step- down. He thought it was a good buffer to step down from residential to C-2 and it was not even a real, contemporary C-2 situation. This was almost like a light C-4 where they are producing all the doughnuts for export. He wanted the Board to look at some viable alternatives. Terry Jones, 656 N.W. 10' Avenue, was extremely upset about having the 24f7 Krispy Kreme project near her residence. She, and the other neighbors, already had to contend with the Waffle House, which is very noisy at night. She had lived in the area for over 20 years and was very unhappy that the City would consider putting a Krispy Krerne across the street from where she lived and was trying to raise her children. She said that people stand outside the Waffle House and carry on at all hours of the day and night and that Krispy Krerne would be the same. She was concerned about the property values if this project goes through. 8 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26.2001 Robert Feldman, owner of Clear Copy, spoke in favor of the Krispy Kreme project. He had been at that location for three years and noted that Dr. Roberts had been in litigation with the owners of the professional building for three years and had been in court a number of times. Mr. Feldman had lived in Boynton Beach since 1974. In his opinion, when Staff recommends a project, the City of Boynton Beach should do all it could to help the developer do it right so business could be brought to Boynton Beach. He thought that it was a great project. Considering the proximity of 1-95, he did not think that anyone would put a residential development on the land. Cars will come into Krispy Kreme, stop, get their doughnuts, and get back on 1-95. He thought it was a commercial piece of property and that the City should help the developer get started. Beatrice Baptiste, 2720 Shipping Avenue (Rear) Coconut Grove, Miami, FI 33133. stated that her mother lives at 629 N.W. 1't Avenue. She stated that her mother's property would be facing the parking lot, the dumpsters, and the traffic and that a wall and trees would not screen everything. She thought it would increase crime, bring unwanted noise, and lower property values. She stated that most of the residences were owned by private individuals and were not rentals. John Johnston, 708 N.W. 10' Avenue, stated that he lived on the comer of 1st Avenue and 7'" Street, on the other side of the printing company. He commented that a business that is open 24/7 does create noise and that his neighborhood was the noisiest neighborhood he had ever lived in. He had lived there since 1977 and seen the neighborhood become very, very noisy. Between the Waffle House, which is open 24/7, and a dumpster the City picks up between 5:00 and 6:00 a.m., burglar alarms going off in the parking lot, and beer bottles being thrown over the wall, it is very noisy already. He has a wall between the Waffle House and his house and they also have a ten-foot high hedge. Still, people throw trash and beer bottles over it. When the bars close, where do they go? They go to places that are open 24/7 at 2:00 to 3:00 in the morning. He has trouble sleeping unless he tums on the air conditioner and shuts the windows. Marsha Johnston, 708 N.W. 10' Avenue, stated that there was constant traffic with the Waffle House being open 24/7. There were semis that came down their street since they had no place else to park, She stated that the wall did nothing to keep the noise from coming in. People are drunk, belligerent, and very noisy. Assistant City Attomey Tolces administered the Oath to Mr. Stanley, John Craig Stanley, 640 N.W. 10' Avenue, stated he had lived in the area for 21 years and had fought against Augy's Restaurant six years before. He felt sorry for Mrs. Baptiste who would be stuck right next to the proposed project. He was in favor of a smaller version of Krispy Kreme that would not involve tearing down any residential property, He would be in favor of a project about the size of Wendy's and one that would not be open 24/7. He asked that the Board consider the neighborhood and not give what amounted to a special privilege to the owners of the duplex that would be tom down to make room for the proposed project. Chairman Wische advised the audience that regardless of the recommendation that this Board made to the City Commission, the final decision rested with the Commissioners, 9 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach. Florida December 26. 2001 CHAIRMAN WISCHE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Myott addressed the residents, saying that it had taken a long time to get to the point of how the residents felt. He stated that the residents had made a good point and that the residents needed to let the Commissioners know their feelings up front and be a little more organized about it. Mr. Ensler stated that he listened to the arguments and that he had focused on item (e.) in the Staff Report on the Land Use AmendmenVRezoning, where it spoke of compatibility with the current and future use of adjacent and nearby properties and whether it would affect the property values of adjacent or nearby properties. In Mr. Ensler's mind, the Board represented the residents of the City. He did see this as affecting the residents. Based on those criteria, he saw no way other than to oppose it on the basis of the effect of the project on the residential properties. Mr. Weiner, claiming his five minutes for rebuttal granted earlier, stated that on posting the signs, the attomey for the City advised that they had been posted properly. Also, on the modification, he pointed out that the Ordinance begins ...."after notice of public hearing has been published or notification mailed to the surrounding property owners..: He suggested that Dick Hudson would confirm that they had given him an amended application and then later they re-noticed this hearing; therefore, all modifications and changes were made before there was any kind of notification to the public. Mr. Weiner noted that while he had sympathy for the residents, zoning was not a popularity contest. At the Board's request, Mr. Weiner clarified a few key items. 1 ) What is the comparison of the potential square footage of number and type of dwelling units under the existing zoning with that which would be allowed under the proposed zoning or development? You can get up to 5,000 square feet of dwelling area. In this case you are only going to have about 4,300 square feet so we are not really increasing the building size under the new zoning. 2) What uses would be allowed under the proposed zoning as opposed to what is presently there? Right now it is duplexes and schools and private day care facilities and it is C-2. 3) What is the proposed timing and phasing of the project? If they get the permits and approvals it will be up and going in about six months. 4) Is the proposed land use amendmenVrezoning consistent with your Comprehensive Plan? They had given a lot of testimony on it. They had an expert on the area speak about it. It meets all of the Comprehensive Plan requirements and the City staff confirms it. Staff also says that the City will get rid of sub-standard housing. 10 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26,2001 Attorneys cannot testify on good zoning practices. He himself had not testified about it but had an expert witness instead. They feel they have met the burden of proof on the Comprehensive Plan. 5) Is the proposed land use amendment/rezoning contrary to the established land use pattern? Just the opposite was true. Just like the City's Comprehensive Plan, they are looking at edges and borders. There are 165K cars passing on 1-95 in any given day. They couldn't possibly be nosier than 165K cars. There were already hundreds of linear feet of C-2 in the area. The residents moved there knowing they were going to be living near a ramp that sees 165K cars a day. 6) Do changed or changing conditions make the proposed land use amendment/rezoning desirable? Yes. There is already a small piece zoned C-2. They could go in there or someone else could go in there and put in an automobile parts store, beer and wine sales, restaurants, taxicab offices, groceries and food stores of less than 10K square feet. What has happened over a period of time is that the building regulations have increased in scope. Now there must be room for additional parking, more landscaping, more open space, and drainage. It is no longer possible to build something on a piece of land the size of a postage stamp. Ask the Planning & Zoning staff where they have more control - when an applicant comes before them who will put in more parking, a stop light, a left-hand turn lane, and new safety items or someone who comes before them with a site plan only. Mr. Weiner entered a document entitled Answers to Justification Statement into the record. Comments from Board Members Mike Fitzpatrick addressed the residents, saying he was very familiar with their neighborhood. When he was a boy he would ride down Ocean Avenue and take a launching ramp across the railroad track. When he was in Cub Scouts he sold gladiolus to build a Scout Hut. He saw the football game between Kansas City and the Dolphins at Dorothy Scarwell's house. Where is his launching ramp now? It has been bulldozed for 1-95. Where is the Scout Hut? It was bulldozed for racquetball courts and now bulldozed for an arts and activity center. Where's Dorothy Scarwell's house? It was bulldozed for the Waffle House. He sleeps in a house about 24 feet from the southbound lane of Seacrest Boulevard so he understood noise 24fT. Nevertheless, they were living in a City, which he agreed was getting a little uglier every year. He understood community values. He was the main person involved in getting Kid's Kingdom built. If we don't put it there, where are we going to put it? This is the best place for a commercial development. He didn't care about processed flour, sugar, and grease and wouldn't eat there, but it was next to an on-ramp to 1-95. Boynton Beach Boulevard is a major artery in Boynton Beach. This is a commercial area and it has been going commercial since he was a boy. He understood "Not In My Back Yard" but stated that this was a commercial area. 11 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach. Florida December 26, 2001 Mr. Hay asked about the alternatives. He asked about the traffic impact and whether a traffic study had been made. Mr. Rumpf stated that they could talk about alternatives if they wished. A traffic study was done and comments generated and incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. If they are met, the County's ordinance for traffic standards would be satisfied. Chairman Wische was asked whether he would like to live next to this project. He commented that he was Chairman of the Board for Leisureville, where there are 4,000 people. They fought Tradewinds because they were going to buy 600 acres adjacent to Leisureville. They were going to ruin Leisureville and all the other adjacent properties. He does live next to them but they didn't ruin it. Everyone in Leisureville now goes to the Home Depot, Burger King, and all the other places there. They fought them so hard that they had to go to Court and Tradewinds won. They won because they met all the Codes and Ordinances and the simple sentence was that we denied them the opportunity to build. Remember that. Motion Mr. Currier made a motion to approve the request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation on a 0.62 acre a parcel from Medium Density Residential (9.68 du/ac) to Local Retail Commercial and to rezone from Duplex Residential (R-2) to Neighborhood Commercial (C-2). Mr. Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary polled a roll call vote and the motion failed 3-4 with Messrs. Ens/er, Hay, Myoft, and Rosenstock dissenting. Mr. Tolces suggested that they make a motion for Item 6(A)2 and vote on it as well. Motion Mr. Currier made a motion to approve the request for Conditional UselSite Plan approval for a 4,680 square foot fast food restaurant with drive-through feature. Mr. Fitzpatrick seconded the motion. The Recording Secretary polled a roll call vote and the motion failed 3-4 with Messrs. Ens/er. Hay, Myoft, and Rosenstock dissenting. Chairman Wische advised that this project would be heard by the City Commission at their January 2. 2002 meeting. Conditional Use/Site Plan Aooroval 3. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: MOBIL ON THE RUN Anna Cottrell Mobil Oil Corporation 2605 W. Woolbright Road Request for Conditional UselSite Plan approval for major modifications to an 12 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26.2001 existing gasoline-dispensing establishment to include a new 2,800 square foot building, an accessory car wash, an increase from 8 fueling positions to 12 fueling positions. and related site improvements on 0.879 acre. Anna Cottrell, 319 Clematis Street, Suite 600, West Palm Beach, agent for the applicant, appeared and stated that the applicant was in agreement with all staff recommended conditions. There might be some discussion called for on the size of the sign. This project represents a demolition and total rebuild of an existing station that was approved in 1997 by the City. Mobil got as far as permits in 1998 but suspended the project for further review. The Corporate decision was to hold the project and now they want to move it forward. They had agreed to buffering, lighting, and signage conditions in 1997 and their plans that they submitted were in accordance with all the previous conditions. CHAIRMAN WISCHE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Mike Friedland, Alternate on the Planning & Development Board. 330 N.E. 26th Avenue, stated that he believed this would be an improvement to the location. He compared the project to a Mobil gas station on Gateway Boulevard, which proved to be a good neighbor and was convenient for people getting off 1-95 to fill up. He felt the area was getting more and more people and that this was a good idea. He urged the Board to approve this project. The Board expressed concerns about the total height of the monument sign, believing that if it were too high, it would obscure the view of drivers and cause accidents. Ms. Cottrell indicated that the applicant would be willing to compromise on the sign height if the City would give them relief on the required four-foot hedge height. The applicant was only concerned that their sign be visible above the top of the hedge. The applicant had initially wanted a pole sign but had switched to the monument type at the City's request. Mr. Rosenstock expressed concerns about the lighting levels. Ms. Cottrell stated that the lights would be baffled, recessed, non-glare, and that they would not exceed the footcandles that had been approved when the project was originally presented in 1997. Various Board members expressed concern over the lack of foundation planting on the most highly visible parts of the property, the front and south sides. After a lengthy discussion, the agent for the applicant agreed that they could transfer the foundation planting from the proposed places to the places that the Board requested. Mr. Myott addressed Mr. Rumpf, saying that he had been watching the Palm Beach County architectural standards and had seen recommendations for site improvements on gas station developments. He strongly suggested that these standards be incorporated into the City's code. Foundation landscaping is definitely recommended in the standards. Messrs. Rosenstock and Ensler agreed. 13 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26.2001 Various Board members expressed concern about the orange sample attached to the elevation display. Ms. Cottrell stated that the building was sandstone beige. and the bottom was a little bit darker. They had accepted a condition that the roof match Amoco's roof. They were not able to pull the permits for Amoco to find out the exact manufacturer's specifications for their roof. The roof tiles are "S" tiles, and will be variegated in color, with some orange. Ms. Galav clarified that after reviewing the Code, there was no height requirement for shrubs around the base of a sign. It merely says that a monument sign must be landscaped using colorful shrubs, two foot in width, on three sides of the sign. Motion Mr. Rosenstock moved to approve the request of Mobil on the Run at 2605 W. Woolbright Road for a conditional use/site plan approval for major modifications to an existing gasoline-dispensing establishment to include a new 2,800 square foot building, an accessory car wash, an increase from 8 fueling positions to 12 fueling positions, and related site improvements on 0.879 acre, sUbject to all the additional comments and specifications as discussed at this meeting. He further moved to amend Condition #9 to allow for a three-foot high masonry monument base and a five-foot high sign. Condition #11 is amended to allow for the overall hedge height to be maintained at two feet. He further moved that the project must have foundation landscaping on the Woolbright Road and Congress Avenue frontages. Mr. Hay seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. 7. New Business A. Master Plan Modification 1. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: B. Site Plan 1. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: HIGH RIDGE PID Winston Lee, ASLA, AICP Levitt Corporation Miner Road and High Ridge Road Request for Master Plan modification to include relocation of the cul-de-sac (Commerce Road) and approval of a master signage program for the High Ridge PID. HIGH RIDGE PID Joni Brinkman Levitt Corporation Miner Road and High Ridge Road Request site plan approval for a 78,030 square foot light industrial building on 5.38 acres. 14 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26, 2001 C. Use Accroval 1. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: HIGH RIDGE PID Winston Lee, AS LA, AICP Levitt Corporation Miner Road and High Ridge Road Establish the list of approved uses for the High Ridge PID. Lusia Galav, Principal Planner, gave an overview of the three items under consideration. The High Ridge PIO has one street, Commerce Road, and there are four lots at the end. which are the subject of these three applications. The four lots on the end by the cul-de- sac are being combined by the developer to create one unified development. In doing so, the PIO Master Plan has to be amended because it will change the configuration of the street and the cul-de-sac. The street is shortened and the cul-de-sac is now going to be a dedicated easement so it will still meet the technical engineering requirements for a dead-end street, allowing a turn-around, but the turn-around is located inside the developed parcel now and will be re-dedicated as an easement. In order to do this the applicant must re-plat the property. This represents the Master Plan change portion of the application. They are also requesting the addition of two general PIO signs and a list of approved uses for the High Ridge PIO and a site-plan for the four lots to create an officelwarehouse type of development in two buildings that will be sold as fee simple condominiums. The first application is for the Master Plan including the signage. CHAIRMAN WISCHE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. No one wished to speak. CHAIRMAN WISCHE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. .:. The Board considered Item 7 A.1, Master Plan modification to include relocation of the cul-de-sac. Chairman Wische asked if the applicant had any issues with the Conditions of Approval and Mr. Lee replied that they were in agreement on all five items for Item 7 A.1. Mike Fitzpatrick expressed his opposition to the project based on his desire to reserve the four lots for possible future use as a Greenways link. He stated that millions of dollars had been spent for roads but virtually nothing had been spent for safe bicycling routes for bicyclists and walkers. He referred to the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, 1988, page 34, paragraph 1: "The entire vegetative corridor as it borders 1-95 to Boynton Beach should be recognized as a biological lifeline, linking sites which concurrently offer daily to hundreds of users of 1-95 a natural visual amenity recalling native Florida. The corridor should be protected. If the native Florida qualities of the corridor are to be part of the City's future, Boynton Beach may be one of the few, if not the only, jurisdiction in the County that can offer this ameliorating feature. . 15 Meeling Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26.2001 He stated that over the years the Commissioners had ignored this and the City had gotten uglier as every year passes. This particular site has been bulldozed and there was not much left on it per se. but as linkage to the north it would be valuable. He cited the various areas with which the four lots could form a link and suggested that it would be an ideal place to have bicycling and walking paths for the public. He was involved with trying to get a Greenways and Parks Taxing District to pay for this sort of purchase but stated that this would probably not come into being for the next year or two. He was not in favor of encouraging more development in an area that the Comprehensive Plan says should be open space. Mr. Rosenstock asked Staff why it had not followed the Master Plan dictates. Ms. Galav stated that this was a Master Plan that had already been approved for this PIO with this lot configuration. This was not a new Master Plan. The Comprehensive Plan had been adopted in 1989 and the Master Plan for the High Ridge PIO was approved prior to that, in the early eighties. Ms. Galav stated that the property had also been properly platted for development. Mr. Myott asked if this land abutted the Seaboard Railway line and was told that it did. He then asked if the Comprehensive Plan language had referred to development along the railroad right-of-way. Mr. Fitzpatrick said no, but that there were a lot of sites listed that had been subsequently bulldozed. Mr. Myott asked if the Comprehensive Plan had called out a particular width of land and Mr. Fitzpatrick responded that it had just said various sites. The Greenways Project Team recommended two hundred feet, which would be an acre of width, but the City Commission never formally adopted this. Motion Mr. Hay moved that the request be approved for Item 7 A.1, Master Plan modification to include relocation of the cul-de-sac (Commerce Road) and approval of a master signage program for the High Ridge PIO, subject to all staff comments. Mr. Myott asked Mr. Lee if they had respected any kind of native landscaping in that area between the parking and the property line. Mr. Lee did not believe there was any. Mr. Myott asked what he would be putting in there. Mr. Lee said that the native landscaping would be on the northem, southem, and westem sides. The side facing 1- 95 was more omamental with Royal Palms and bougainvillea. He referred to the discrepancy between their plans and the Comprehensive Plan, which called for a more native type of landscaping and the confusion that has been created. Mr. Currier seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1, with Mr. Fitzpatrick dissenting. .:. The Board proceeded to consider Item 7B.1, the Site Plan approval for a 78,030 square foot light industrial building on 5.38 acres for the High Ridge PIO. Ms. Galav commented on the Conditions of Approval for the Site Plan. Condition #11 regarding unity of title could be eliminated since the property is being replatted. With reference to Condition #15, Staff had originally looked at this as officelwarehouse; however, in a PIO the parking requirement is per employee. The proposed site will have 156 parking spaces and the parking spaces will go with the particular bay and be sold 16 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach. Florida December 26. 2001 with the bay. The City has agreed to allow the required parking to be 1-800. which is typical for an industrial park, and would call for 98 parking spaces. The developer is providing 156 parking spaces. This comment. then. can be eliminated. Mr. Lee stated that these had been the only items that needed clarification and that they were now in agreement with all Conditions of Approval. CHAIRMAN WISCHE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. No one wished to speak. CHAIRMAN WISCHE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve Item 7B.1, the request for site plan approval for a 78,030 square foot light industrial building on 5.38 acres with the elimination of Condition #11 about unity of title and Condition #15 regarding parking. Mr. Myotl seconded the motion that carried 6-1, Mr. Fitzpatrick dissenting. .:. The Board then considered item 7C.1, the establishment of a list of approved uses for the High Ridge PID. Mr. Lee commented that the applicant agreed with all Staff Conditions of Approval. Mr. Myotl said that after reading the backup, he was not clear about what uses were and were not approved. Mr. Lee said that the uses were the same as other PIDS in town and that they had modeled it after Quantum. CHAIRMAN WISCHE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING. No one wished to speak. CHAIRMAN WISCHE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. Motion Mr. Hay moved to approve Item 7C.1, the establishment of a list of approved uses for the High Ridge PID, subject to all staff Conditions of Approval. Mr. Currier seconded the motion that carried 7-0. D. Site Plan Time Extension 1. Project Name: WOOLBRIGHT MEDICAL BUILDING (Freeman) Steven Utrecht, PA Mark Freeman Woolbright Road & 22nd Street Agent: Owner: Location: 17 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26.2001 Description: Request a (1) one-year time extension of the site plan approval and concurrency granted on November 8, 2000, to November 8, 2002. Motion Mr. Rosenstock moved to grant the extension of the site plan approval and concurrency certification to November 8,2002. Mr. Myolt seconded the motion that carried 7-0. E. Code Review DEFINITION OF HEIGHT/HEIGHT EXCEPTION Bradley Miller, AICP NIA Citywide Request for a code review to revise the definition of "building heighf found in Land Development Regulations, Chapter 1, Article II, and to add language to the exemptions to the maximum building height found in Land Development Regulations, Chapter 2, Section 4.F.2. Bradley Miller, Miller Land Planning Consultants, 298 Pineapple Grove Way, Delray Beach, representing the First Baptist Church near City Hall, explained that their request had given rise to this code issue. The applicant proposed 1) an amendment to the code with a definition of building height, and 2) adding the words "and church height" to the list of exemptions in the height exception process. 1. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: He stated that the Church used to own property on the west side of 8'" Street near the Cracker Barrel. They made a conscious decision to sell that property and stay in their current location and expand it. They felt that the existing structure was important to the City and they wanted to stay "home.. They acquired the property all the way over to First Street on the west side and to Third Street on the north side, so they essentially own the entire block. In the future they will be presenting a site plan application to the CRA. The code review item has to go before both boards because it does apply citywide. Lusia Galav said that several applicants had requested this change to the LOR. They had reviewed the definition of building height used by the Cities of Delray Beach, West Palm Beach, Pompano Beach, and Palm Beach County. All four definitions use finished grade as the starting point, but they all differentiate between roof style to determine the highest point of measurement. Staff feels that the definition offered by Palm Beach County was the most appropriate for Boynton Beach to allow those peaks in roofs not to be counted towards the actual overall height since they do not encompass the entire square footage that a flat roof would. Staff concurs with the code review definition change as proposed by the applicant. 18 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach. Florida December 26.2001 The other portion of the code review has to do with the actual height of churches. There is already a height exception process in the code where certain types of mechanical equipment, church steeples, parapets. and so forth may be excepted. The Church IS within the district limitations on height except for the steeple, on which they will apply for a height exception. They also have an area called a "fly" which is the area used for raising and lowering backdrops for stage and theatrical productions, which would be 57 feet high in a district with a height limitation of 45 feet. This use is not currently on the height exception list in the code. Mr. Rosenstock asked if this would allow anyone else in the City of Boynton Beach to do the same. Ms. Galav responded that it would allow church height as one of the items to be considered in the height exception procedure. The existing height exception procedure would have the words "and church heighf added to it. Anyone wishing to use this exception would have to file an appiication for an exception and the City would review it on a case-by-case basis with all the criteria that are currently listed under height exceptions. Mr. Rosenstock was in favor of allowing exceptions in building height for church steeples but not for theaters and he considered that this request was for a theater, not a church. He said it would open the door to anyone who wished to build a theater higher than what was allowed in the code. Mr. Ensler asked how church was defined. Did a Buddhist Temple fall under that definition? Ms. Galav stated that it did and that they categorize churches as places of worship. Mr. Rosenstock thought this should be called out specifically. Ms. Galav said the language could be changed to place of worship. Mr. Ensler was concemed about groups that consider themselves to be religious groups and may not be. Mr. Rumpf stated that they saw churches as places of worship and that this term was used throughout the zoning code. They feel that churches have unique features that have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Ensler and Mr. Rosenstock expressed concems about changing the code and both preferred to address the issue via a separate application from the church. Ms. Galav thought that this would have to be by the variance process, which Staff had avoided since there would not be a traditional hardship. Mr. Miller stated that even if the code change were passed tonight, the First Baptist Church would have to come with a request based on the criteria for the exception. Messrs. Ensler and Rosenstock both preferred to change the ordinance for the variance procedure rather than make the proposed changes to the code. Mr. Hay asked whether having the Church apply for a variance would jeopardize their project if they could not prove a hardship. Mr. Tolces said that based upon what is in the code, you have to establish that there is a hardship in order to get a variance. They might be able to present evidence of a hardship and the Board could vote that there was one but the situation was hypothetical. Mr. Myott thought that many churches and schools might have this requirement for a fly for their performances and that it would be useful to include this in the code. He thought it was a small change. His architectural input was that they see this type of church as being pretty normal for a larger congregation. He thought that this was how one did churches nowadays and that this kind of height was required for them to be able to 19 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26.2001 Function properly. Mr. Miller stated that if there were elevators in the church, it would allow the building to go above that height to accommodate the elevator shaft for its mechanical equipment to pull the elevator up. This is the same; they were just pulling up the backdrops instead of an elevator. Mr. Myolt felt it was very specific and that only church height would be added to the language. Mr. Tolces reminded the Board that what was before them at this time was a request for a change to the code provisions and not necessarily a site plan. Mr. Fitzpatrick mentioned that he believed St. Joseph's and the Presbyterian Church on S'" Avenue both had very high inside areas, like SO to 70 feet high and he wondered how they were passed. Mr. Rumpf replied that those uses probably predate the height limitation of 45 feet. Mr. Ensler believed that there might be times when this would be approved and other times when it might not, depending on the neighborhood and other factors. Mr. Rumpf replied that the applications would still be analyzed on a case-by-case basis, using many different criteria. The fact that it was allowed in the code did not mean that a particular application would be approved. The decision would still be made based on other factors. Having it in the code allowed the City to review the application based upon adjacent properties, compatibility, and design characteristics but not site, building, or area specific, which is what the variance criteria is based upon. Mr. Rumpf read the criteria that govern height exceptions and the variance criteria. He hoped that this helped the Board understand why Staff steered towards the height exception process rather than the variance process. Messrs. Rosenstock and Ensler were both concerned about potential lawsuits if the code change was made. Mr. Rosenstock gave an example of a marina. If someone built a building that required a high fly and it was built right next to the marina and kept the sun out of it, it might generate a lawsuit against the City if they had approved it. If it were in the middle of downtown it would not matter. If someone wants to put up a church in a residential area and this code change goes through, someone could build a church and he would have a problem with that. Mr. Rosenstock did not want to make changes to the code that would make it easier for someone to exceed the existing code. Mr. Rosenstock also said there was no limit on the height at present and asked if they could go up 100 feet? Ms. Galav said that decisions would be made on an individual, case-by- case basis. Mr. Tolces said there were two different amendments being proposed. The first one was the language for building height and the second amendment was the inclusion of the words "and church heighr to the exception process. Motion Mr. Myott moved to approve Item 7E.1, request for a code review to revise the definition of "building heighr found in the Land Development Regulations Chapter 1, Article II and to add language to the exemptions to the maximum building height found in Land Development Regulations Chapter 2, Section 4.F.2. Mr. Hay seconded the motion that passed 4-3, Messrs. Wische, Rosenstock, and Ens/er dissenting. 20 Meeting Minutes Planning & Development Board Boynton Beach, Florida December 26, 2001 VII. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~P?t111~;J Susan Collins Recording Secretary (two tapes) (12/27/01) 21