AGENDA DOCUMENTS
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM
Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned
Meeting Dates in to City Clerk's Office Meeting Dates in to City Clerk's Office
0 April 5,2005 March 14,2005 (Noon.) D June 7, 2005 May 16,2005 (Noon)
0 April 19,2005 April 4, 2005 (Noon) IZI June 21, 2005 June 6, 2005 (Noon)
0 May 3, 2005 April 18, 2005 (Noon) D July 5, 2005 June 20, 2005 (Noon)
D May 17, 2005 May 2,2005 (Noon) D July 19, 2005 July 5, 2005 (Noon)
D Administrative D Development Plans
NATURE OF IZI Consent Agenda D New Business
AGENDA ITEM D Public Hearing D Legal
D Bids D Unfinished Business
D Announcement D Presentation
D City Manager's Report
RECOMMENDATION: Please place this request on the June 21, 2005 City Commission Agenda under Consent
Agenda. The Planning and Development Board reconnnended that the subject request be approved on May 24,2005.
For further details pertaining to the request, see attached Department of Development Memorandum No. PZ 05-069.
EXPLANATION:
PROJECT:
AGENT:
OWNER:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
Grove Plaza Parcel B (MPMD 05-009)
Lution Hill, KMA Investment Properties
Grove Plaza B, LLC
3920 Hypoluxo Road
Request for Master Plan Modification approval to convert parcel "B" from a proposed
3,800 square foot bank to a 14,291 square foot office building.
PROGRAM IMPACT:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ALTERNATIVES:
N/A
N/A
N/A
Devel
City Manager's Signature
k.d ~
Planning anh Director City Attorney / Finance / Human Resources
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\grove plaza\Grove Plaza MPMD\Parcel B MPMD 05-009\Agenda Item Request Grove Plaza Parcel B MPMD 05-
009.6-2I-05.dot
S:\BULLETIN\FORMS\AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM.DOC
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM NO. PZ 05-069
TO:
Chair and Members
Planning and Development Board
Michael W. RumPffIVtl-
Director of Planning & Zoning
Ed 8reese ?@
Principal Planner
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
May 6, 2005
Grove Plaza - File No. MPMD 05-009
Master Plan Modification (Change on Parcel "B'')
SU8JECT:
PROJECT NAME:
Grove Plaza - MPMD 05-009
LOCATION:
Grove Plaza, southeast corner of Lawrence Road and Hypoluxo Road
APPLICANT:
Lution Hill, KMA Investments
LAND USE/ZONING:
Local Retail Commercial (LRC) / Community Commercial (C-3)
NATURE OF REQUEST
The applicant, Mr. Lution Hill of KMA Investments, is requesting to modify the Subdivision Master Plan for
Grove Plaza. This development is located on the south side of Hypoluxo Road, just east of Lawrence Road
(see Exhibit "A" - Location Map). The specific request is to modify the square footage and proposed use
originally approved on Parcel "8" of the Grove Plaza Master Plan (see Exhibit "B" - Proposed Master Plan).
Parcel "B" was initially approved for a 3,800 square foot bank. This master plan modification is requested to
allow development of a 14,291 square foot office building on Parcel "B", in lieu of a 3,800 square foot bank.
BACKGROUND/ ANALYSIS
The subject property was formerly the location of a landscaping and nursery business until it was annexed and
rezoned. On September 19, 1995, the subdivision master plan was approved with six (6) separate parcels,
each of which would require separate site plan review and approval. In 1999, a major modification to the
master plan was approved for the development of the first parcel (Parcel "A'') and several changes to the
remaining parcels. Parcel "A" was approved for a gas station (7-Eleven convenience store with gas sales).
The remaining parcels consisted of the following: 3,800 square-foot bank on Parcel "8", 6,540 square feet of
retail on Parcel "C", 9,000 square feet of retail on Parcel "0", a 3,600 square foot restaurant on Parcel "E", and
another 3,600 square foot restaurant on Parcel "F". In July of 2002, the City Commission approved a master
plan modification (MPMD 02-001) for a change in Parcel "E", from a restaurant to a one-story car-wash facility
(Motor City Car Wash). The accompanying site plan (NWSP 02-007) for the car wash was approved as well.
Then, in March of 2004, the City Commission approved another master plan modification (MPMD 03-003) for
Parcel "F" to allow a 7,180 square foot retail building in place of a 3,600 square foot restaurant. The
accompanying site plan (NWSP 03-027) for the project (Auto Zone) was approved as well. On June 1, 2004,
the City Commission approved a modification to the master plan amending Parcel "0" from the previously
Memorandum No. PZ 05-069
Grove Plaza (Grove Plaza Parce' "B"), MPMD 05-009
Page 2
approved 9,000 square foot retail building, to an 11,972 square foot retail building, and the companion site
plan at the same time. Then, in February of 2005, the City Commission approved the most recent master plan
modification (MPMD 05-003) for Parcel "C" to allow a 6,832 square foot minor automotive repair facility in
place of a 6,540 square foot retail building, and the requisite site plan at the same time.
Each parcel is required to provide the minimum parking for their respective use as designated on the plan.
The following summary indicates the required and provided parking for each parcel:
Parcel Name Required Parking Provided Parking
Parcel A 12 28
Parcel B 48 68
Parcel C 28 35
Parcel 0 60 60
Parcel E 04 09
Parcel F 29 38
Throughout the master plan modification proposals, the applicant has continued to provide additional parking
to accommodate the changes in use or intensity.
In addressing the impacts associated with the master plan modification relative to Palm Beach County Traffic
Performance Standards, the applicant's consultant, Kimley-Horn and Associates, concluded that the change
does not result in an increase in the daily a.m. peak or p.m. peak hour trip generation over that previously
approved. The statement was sent to the Traffic Division of Palm Beach County for their review and approval.
Palm Beach County Traffic Division, on February 17, 2005, issued a letter of determination that the revised
development plan generates less daily and peak hour trips than that previously approved, and therfore is in
conformance with said standards.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting to remove one of the "General Notes", which states, " All structures to
be one story maximum". This general note was a condition of staff associated with the annexation, zoning and
master plan approval in 1992. The building proposed for Parcel "B" is a two-story office building, that is 27
feet tall to the roof deck. The decorative molding atop the parapet walls, increase the building height from 30
to 32 feet, depending upon location. The maximum allowable height in this zoning district (C-3) is 45 feet. The
maximum allowable height in the City's closest residential zoning district (R-1A) is 30 feet. The proposed
building to be constructed upon Parcel "B" would appear to be compatible with surrounding residential, which
is a mix of one and two story homes. Furthermore, the building proposed would be over 88 feet from the
closest residentially zoned property. Finally, this is the last parcel to be approved for development within the
Grove Plaza Master Plan. As a condition of approval, staff recommends, rather than removal of the restriction
all together, that the language in the Master Plan be modified to reflect a restriction to two (2) stories, not to
exceed 30 feet. This would also allow, per existing code, parapet walls of five (5) foot or less, in excess of the
30 foot limit.
No other changes affecting the overall master plan are contemplated in this request by the applicant.
RECOMMENDAnON
The Technical Application Review Team (TART) has reviewed this master plan modification request and
recommends approval. Staff recommends approval, contingent upon successfully satisfying all comments
indicated in Exhibit "C" - Conditions of Approval. Any additional conditions recommended by the Board or City
Commission shall be documented accordingly in the Conditions of Approval.
I
..
EXHI'B'IT ., A"
1/n. = 313.0 feet
COUNTY PO
.
.
o RD
CO
LAWRENCE. RD
~"i"'O"',
~ .' . o':.~ '>
. 0;;;:'~' ,','''l
i I~"\\
l !>,
\:. ' . -~ ,..
~'; , , t-<_0/
c: h, \"
LOCATION MAP
. -......... "'I~
I UUU.,
~ qG'U I ,_.....=~.
BUUH
I ill!l!l,~ l~.~.t.\....",.......... ...
~ II Ii.. ------ -- ----. I.AIIlIIEJa lIlWIlI
I I ~ I i I I ------------- - ----
:jJhi il.....~ :..7 - ~-= ~L~~. ~-..'
:i;8 : !
~~ ~ i ~
. ~ i
E g I
I ~
1151; ..
,!. 6'
G,!;i t
I
U
i I
I l
I
I
()
n )>
'I ~
I .... )>
$II ~
U... z
;; I -0
$~ ~ ;0
. 0
iI.' ()
il~ d
I < ~
Is c1
i' ;0
;gO
. I ~
~ -
z
~ ()
~
~
~
I
iii
II:
..
~
~
i
2
..
~
G)
s:;o
)>0
cn<
~m
::O'1J
~~
u
(
( ," ~
lil
I
I
II
I
Ii!;
;F'b
in
i 1
i
8
n
it
i
.
b ' l
.......... . .... ,,:.~/.
-""" " .
2t.UCI'
~II
(AflD .., ..=-=-":: .....,.. I
~
l!l .
~:~
~ w
~
~
I :s
I :i
I
,'.
:
[
I:
i:
,
I
:s
~
r i
~fi : ~ I
r la
EXH\
:0 , r ,. l' " :' II
ell'i I:II! III: IJlfliji: ! ! J
Ii 'i 1r,~1 .11' 'I!I J'tl i I
.-..1 III'u 1.1, I I ..
~I!b il.. i :ij: 1;1:1': ~ :
liS,! ..'.1 lilli, 1..li.is; II Ii
~r _ -,.. II. lI!ri
:lil; I!il" i I :rll l-t:I'llI! i . I
ilii CI. ,E 'i.@ iil:~' I J
i,h lI-iJ lill' -1;fll i
i~:III~I~:: I I:, :r'l ~
ib. ii J ;11= 11:=11,
:-: .S .i ':11:'1
~ ~ ~ p "
ii J,-j II~ 'II-'ill I
-, II I - I'.~ -
III., i.. ., 'bll :;
· 'il sll-lI!ill Ii
. E illl'- !~ .llil!1 Pi
I J i' I- iil- l
; . '1'1. :! lilii I
I I' I,' f. 1,,1, t
.. I!; Ii i-Ii ·
I · '11.f I'::. I
;; Ii I . P, -l~ij
. I." III -- ,
I !I-'. · 'ilij
t : ','i
"""11 I
~ :' ~ :' ~ ~II i
111111111111,i: !
Ililllllllli ! ·
1I1111111111.~
. .. ........ .Ie
..1.1........_11
11-::11111111--
l!i'i'
,!;=-:
! : i:o ~ ~
""'\.""1' il,"
".I-IIU i
~I~~I~JJ ~~ !
';~Jil!11 ·
Ulilll~f I
II I I.."
li-l-lI "
ii;i'.- ff
;:!!!..
......--
~;~~~~
~!!!!!
Ii
,=
I'
I
fr
.il
$z
EXHIBIT "C"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: Grove Plaza Parcel B
File number: MPMD 05-009
Reference: 2nd review plans identified as a Master Plan Modification with an April 26, 2005 Planning & Zoning
d k
ate stamp mar mg.
DEP ARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments: None X
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None X
UTILITIES
Comments: None X
FIRE
Comments: None X
POLICE
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
1. Please note that changes or revisions to these plans may generate additional X
comments. Acceptance of these plans during the TRC process does not
ensure that additional comments may not be generated by the Commission
and at permit review.
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None X
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None X
FORESTER/ENVIRONMENTALIST
Comments: None X
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PLANNING AND ZONING
Comments:
2. The Parking Data information requires updating for Total Spaces Required X
and Total Spaces Provided for both the entire development and also
individually for Parcel B.
3. With the removal of the one story height restriction, language be added to X
the Master Plan that buildings not exceed two (2) stories and/or thirty (30)
feet in height.
ADDITIONAL PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT BOARD CONDITIONS
Comments:
I. None X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be determined.
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECTS\grove plaza\Grove Plaza MPMD\Parcel B MPMD 05-009\COA.doc
Meeting Minutes .
Planning and Development Board
Boynton Beach, Florida
Motion
May 24, 2005
Mr. Casaine moved that the request for Conditional Use approval to convert
approximately 3,500 square feet of an 11,973 square foot retail building in a C-3
zoning district for a minor automotive repair establishment be approved with all
conditions as proposed by staff. Motion seconded by Ms. Jaskiewicz and carried
6-0.
D. Master Plan Modification
1.
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Grove Plaza (Parcel B) (MPMD 05-009)
Lution Hill, KMA Investments
Grove Plaza B, LLC
3960 Hypoluxo Road
Request for Master Plan Modification approval
to convert parcel "Bft from a proposed 3,800
square foot bank to a 14,291 square foot office
building.
Mr. Wische noted there were only three staff comments, and staff had nothing
further to add.
Chairman Wische opened the public hearing. Since no one wished to speak, the
public hearing was closed.
Motion
Ms. Jaskiewicz moved that the request for Master Plan Modification approval to
convert parcel "Bft from a proposed 3,800 square foot bank to a 14,291 square
foot office building be approved, subject to all staff comments. Motion seconded
by Vice Chair Hay and carried 6-0.
E. New Site Plan
1.
Project:
Agent:
Owner:
Location:
Description:
Grove Plaza Parcel B (NWSP 05-012)
Lution Hill, KMA Investment Properties
Grove Plaza B, LLC
3960 Hypoluxo Road
Request for New Site Plan approval for a
14,291 square foot, two (2) story office
building on a 1.116-acre parcel in a C-3 zoning
district.
7
MINUTES - REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING
BOYNTON BEACHt FLORIDA
DECEMBER 15t 1992
ANNEXATION/LAND USE ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONINGI
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT: Request to annex
land and show as Local Retail Commercial, to rezone
from CC (Community Commercial) in Palm Beach County
to C-3 (Community Commercial) and to amend the text
of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element -
Planning Area 6.c.
Mr.i Cutro made the presentation. In 1989, when the Comprehensive Plan was
beihg prepared, this property was shown outside the City as residential. The
Palm Beach County Planning Department attempted to change the unincorporated
plah to show it as residential, but the property owner asked the City to send a
let~er to the County showing the land as commercial land use and zoning. It was
left that way. The City.s Plan was not changed from residential to commercial
and a discrepancy now exists between the County Plan and the City Plan.
Description:
The! owner has signed a Water Service Agreement, received concurrency and site
plah review for the site from the County. This is effective until April of
1995.
The! only problem the City has encountered with the site plan is that the owner
hasi been asked to install a buffer wall on the east side as well as on the
sou~h. The applicant has stipulated to do that. At its meeting of December
8thi, the Pl anni ng and Development Board revi ewed thi s proposal and forwarded it
with a recommendati on for approval.
Vic~ Mayor Matson requested clarification on why Messrs. Lehnertz and Davis
Obj~cted to this proposal. Mr. Cutro explained that they felt there might still
be ~ possibility of using this property as residential. Mr. Cutro pointed out
that conflicting policies exist. Corner properties are supposed to be used for
co~. ercial and attempts should be made to try to put commercial near intersec-
tio~s of larger arterials. However, at the same time, this property is being
sho~n as residential.
Thei applicant was not present.
,
THE~E WAS NO ONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON PUBLIC HEARING.
It was determined that no action was required by the Commission until the
reaaing of the Ordinances later in the meeting.
B. Text Amendment reference Day Care Centers in R1-AA Zoning District
Mr.1 Cutro made the presentation and reminded the Commission that they authorized
starf to go forward with a text change to allow, as a conditional use, day care
cenEers in the Rl-AA Zoning District when they are accessory to churches. An
Ord~nance to accomplish this appears on tonight's agenda for first reading.
i
Frank Houston, 600 NW 10th Courtt is a homeowner in Sky Lake. He opposes this
change because the Church of God has a parcel of land on which they wish to
build a day care center. That parcel of land abuts his property as well as
others. The owners are concerned with the possible increase in noise levels,
- 9 -
'i
MINUTES - PlANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH. FLORIDA
DECEMBER 8. 1992
VII. NEW BUSINESS
A. PUBLIC HEARING
LAND USE, ELEMENT AMENDMENT/REZONING/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
1. Project Name:
Agent:
Owner:
Locati on:
Description:
Lawrente and Hypoluxo Corrmerc1aJ Center
Kieran J. Kilday/Kilday & Associatest Inc.
Mar/Jame Limited
c/o James Marc, Brandon
An 8.22 a:cre;parcelat the southeast corner of
Hypoluxo Road and Lawrence Road
Request to shQw: annexed land, as Local Retail
COI'fT!lercial, to rezone from CC (CoJJmuni ty Com-
mer,cial) in Pal!11 Beach County toC-3 (Community
Commercial), and to amend ,the text of the Compre-
hensive Plan Future Land Use Element - Planning
Area 6.c'
Ms. Huckle questioned the absence of the word "annexationll from this applica-
tion. Mr. Rumpf explained that-the Land Pl~n Amendment is reviewed by the
Pl ann; ng and Development Board and it assum~s that annexation will take place.
Ms. Heyden stated the Planning and Development Board does not have to review the
annexation.
.-' :.J'~l
Mr. Rumpf made the presentation. The current land use on this parcel is CLl5
(Corrmercial Low) and CC (Commmity Corrmercial). The appl i cant has submitted a
request to amend the Future Land Use Map ,of the Comprehensive Plan in order to'
change the designation on the ,property to Local Retail Commercial and to rezone
it to C-3 (Corrmunity Commercia 1). A Comprehensi ve Plan Text amendment has been
applied for to delete the portion of the recorrmendatiorl for Planning Area 6.c
whi ch limits the area to residential use.
With regard to surrounding land usest Santaluces High School is located to the
north; Knollwood Groves nursery property is on the east, which also includes a
multi-family portion of the Knoll wood Groves PUD master plan; single-family
homes .and a coomercial nursery are to the south; vacant property, zoned AR, is
to the west; and vacant property, zoned for single-family development, is to the
northwest.
The land use amendment and rezoning requests are consistent with the land use
and zoning designations in the County. Although this property was originally
designated for residential development in the County, the applicant was granted
an amendment and the zoning necessary to allow commercial development.
The original residential classification was based on the City's land use
"',<" designation. When approached by the property owner to have his property
designated corrmercial t the County objected because of the City I s, Comprehensive
Plan. The property owner then requested that the City consider the potential
for commercial development on his property and inform the County that they no
longer opposed commercial use. On March 6, 1990t the City agreed that commer-
cial land use was more appropriate and requested staff to inform the County of
their informal decision.
- 3 -
,"'..;T:~1
- . . .
MINUTES - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEEt1NG
BOYNTON BEACN, FLORIDA ..
DECEMBER 8, 1992
With respect to the City's Comprehensive Plan~ there is text within the Future
Land ,Use Support Document, and po'l ic.ies in the Plan ~ which pertain to land use
conversion,nainely, the c.onversi,on tocoimlercial land use.
r"''''.-''
Palm Beach CO!Jnty approved a slt,e plan for approximately one-half of the subject
property andoD August 31~ 1992, a certificate of Concurrency reservation, which
reserves, service capaci tyunttl Apr; 1 22, 1993 was issued. One of the con-
ditions of the site plan approval is to vOluntarily annex. the property into the
City of Boynton Beach.
Staff recol1l1lends that the applications be approved as the property ;s contiguous
to '~h~corp:orate limi,ts and is within the City' sReserve,Annexation Area. The
propo-Sed Land 'Use Plan amendment is co:nsistent with Palm, Beach COlmty1sCompre-
hensi've: Plan. The request forcbrrunercia 1 landus~ is consistent with POlicy
1.17.I.Since acce'ss to, ,the property is, greatest, and impacts upon residential
1 anduseswouT'd: bemtnor. ThEr propo~,ed Land USe amenCltne:nt would not e1 iminate
any residenttal Hind necessary: to accolllTlodate tHe (leed wl)ich has peen projected
by the Compreh:enstve Plp.n. The su~.Ject propertyjs more s:u,itaJple, fQr commercial
uses,and a geogrAp'htc need Ill~ eXl:sl for cOIImer.c;ial l'and~e~giyen its proxi-
mity. to Hypo 1 uiXPRQad,aJ1d: othE!:f C'omme,r~ja.l loca,~.iPfls. . Thts:si'i1;e .~ s the' subject
of an approved site. p]an... The';CJty'Q,oillnission Ha'$preV;iously 'informally
approved cotmlercial land use on theso!>jettproperty.
Ms. HUickle pointed .out an errpron PClge 5 of the' bClCk-up material. The date in
f/7 sh.ould be changed to read Aprll 22, 1993..
Ms. Stevens qU,estioned whether-any discussions had taken place with the property
owner with regard to protectiQll for the residential area to the south. Mr.
Cutro ~tated there i$ an ex~s.~ing sixfootw.all on the s,outh side. Heexplained
that woen prop,erty is anneXed dnto. the C,i ~y, it is done wi th the deve 1 opment
rights Which are alr.-eapy o.nt~e land. One existing problem is that there is no
wall on ~he ea.$ts;de pf tne~r()p~r.ty,. The reason for this is the fact that the
proper~y'on th;e east i~ariursJ~ry :a,nd'when the County reviewed it, they felt an
agri quJti)ralu:se ~ga in~t .a cqrr,merCial use:: requires no buffer; ng. The appl i cant
wilJad9resst#isissu~ durilJg' hispr:esen~a1:ion. A wall will be installed on
the south as piirt of the deve1ioPment. .
KierainKtlday represented t~e,,:prQpe:rty owner who was also present. With regard
to' th:e:p~()perty on the; southCl.jndea'st~ there is an existing condition 1n the
County:fgr the: applicant to'pr.'OVide a wall and additional landscaping across the
south:~,~Hindary 'l1oe. theY&~p'licant,wil1 extend that condition to include the
east houqctary line. Mr. Kilday advised the property owner to the east that this
conditi6riwduld become a pa.ft: of tonight's record.
A six foot chain link fence, currently exists on the south property line and will
remain in pla,ce until theprqpertyis developed. Only half of this property is
~f'o approved for d~velopment at;this ti!Jl8. That property is across from the blink-
ing light at Sa:ntaluces Hig'o 'SChool. The owner is attempting to get a sit-down
restaurant for this development.
- 4 -
~1.7'::;l
MINUTES - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
BOYNTON BEACH, flORIDA
DECEMBER a, 1992
The praperty awner had to' meet concurrency traffic requirements which limited
the ~mountof building which can be placed an this. property. Until 22nd Avenue
is further four'laned from Congress Avenue to Military Trail, no additianal can-
currency reservatianscan be secured.
Mr .Mi 11 er questi anedMr. Kilday regarding the ultimate design af Lawrence Road.
Mr.KHdayreported that Lawrence road had an eighty (80') faot right-of-way.
The .appHcant is required todedtcat.e twenty (20 I) feet for additional turn
lanes. Thededit,at.J()rl 0'0 I;lypoluxohas already taken place.. The applicant lost
two acres of landfor dedications. No other loss of property is anticipated.
Mr. Kilday displayedth,e County's approved site. plan and nated that th,e blinki ng
light will have to' beupgracied..~crOs,sfrom ~antalu,ces High Schaal. The antici-
pateduse. of.the remaind;er 'oftheprepenty is unknown at ~his time. All further
development would have to' ceme.through the City a's part of the annexation.
In response to Mr. Mil lerlsqu,estian, Mr'. KHdaysatd the dimensions af the site
are 293 feet deep off HYPoluxa'and 1,221' feet east to west.
Mr. Davisas.ked Mr. KildflY to ~ddress.the geographic need for this development.
Mr. Ki 1 daysrtated that the County ha'~its own r.equi remel1ts and economic out line.
Accordingtd ;County needs, urldesignated commerc;ia,l land is still needed in this
a rea.
i 1 '1
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Kilday reparted that he has met with
all but aneof the praperty owners to the south. There have been no objections
from any of the ewners.
Mr. Davis inquired as to whether or not the residential area to' the south would
remain in the County. Mr,Cutro explained that the City intends to' pursue
enclaves and thi s is one af those areas. They will be asked to annex intO' the
City.. Ms. stevens mentioned that the State Legislature is preparing to do
something to'make it .easier to take these enclaves in. Mr. Cutro has heard
something to'. this effect, but has not seen anything in writing.
Mr. Miller said he was confused reading through the back-up material and asked
farclarificatian about preVious action by the City er County with regard to'
this property being earmarked farcamnercial. Mr. Cutro explained that in
1989, this praperty was outside the City. The owner specifically asked the City
Cammission torecolll1lendcemmercial use for this property. On March 6, 1990, the
City CommissiQn approved that request. A letter was sent by Tim Cannon to the
Caunty. The County altered the maps to shaw this praperty as commercial, but
when the LanliUse Plan was done, Mr. Cannon did not alter the City maps. Mr.
Lehnertz further explained that if the City maps and the Camprehensive Plan were
changed at that point, the changes wauld have had to have been reviewed by the
Planning and Zoning Board and the City Commission. That review never took
place. The City Commissian1s vate was an informal vote.
Mr. Miller feels that in view of everything which took place in the past, the
Baard is hard pressed not to allow cemmercial use. However, he feels it is
- 5 -
MINUTES - PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETING
~c= BOYNTON BEACH ~ FLORIDA
DECEMBER 8~ 1992
possible that the residential homes to the south might assemble to this property
and th.atwould provide land for an entire center. Mr. Kilday said at one time,
the property owners to the south considered assembling to get better depth. Mr.
Kilday feels such a move would permit better planning of the site. However. a 11
of the property owners must agree on assemblage. and at this point, that is not.
the case.
THERE WAS NO ONE PRESENT TO SPEAK ON PUBLIC HEARING.
Mr. Davis noted that the back-up mater tal reflects an excess of corrvnercial pro-
perty in this- particular:area. .Futther,ther.e tsari additional notation
. regardlngnot' ,allowiJig-~er'Cial (ieVelopmentwhi~h wn 1 affect a resicfentia 1
zone or create strip d:evelopments. He feels this site is not :u:niqueand the
geog;raphic needs are be;:rig met elsewhere. Therefore, he does -niJt see the need
for this change.
Chairman lehnertzal~o noted that there is a huge commercial development at
Congress Avenue and HYPoluxo Rpad as well as a huge corrme~cia1 development at
. Military Trail and HYPoluxo Road. The Compre~ensive- .Plan mentions avoiding
stripc-omm~rcial zones and the ,City h~s attempted to avoid those situations.
Chairman Lehnertz, feels t-hissite fa,lls in that category. It will be a strip
SQOPpin9~~n.ter and event,l;Ially ~ Hypo.lu}\oRoad can beCome a roadway fi lled wi th
strJp sll10Ppirt9 _centers. Tnere are .b.eauti ful homes behind thi s property and
Cha.irmiin L:ehilertz feels thtspa:rcel could easily be deve.10ped as a residential
area.
Mr. Miller feels that aS~emblage may occur at some point in time; however, this
parcel does not lend itself to reside,ntial use because it is too small and
narrow for multi-familY use, and because of its location on Hypoluxo Road, it is
notapproptiate for ,single-fami"ly development. Therefore, it appears that the
parcel should be zoned for corrmercial development.
Aftf!r review.lng Pol icy 119.6, Ms.. Huckle conCluded that because of the con-
figurati:on aT this parcel, she sees. commercial as the only use for this parcel.
Chairman Lehnertzinquired as to whether or not it was necessary for the Board
to vote on the annexation. Mr. Cutro advised that the Board was only to vote an
the Land Use Plan amendment and the zoning. Again, Ms. Huckle pointed out that
the Planning and Zoning Board always participated in annexations and felt con-
fused by this request. Mr. Kilday explained that when the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted, boundaries were drawn of the designated annexation areas, so in
effect, the annexation decision was made by this Board. Mr. Rumpf explained
that this only goes back before the City COl11Jlission so that they can act to
adopt an Ordinance which makes the action official.
Motion
Mr. Miller moved to approve the amendment to the Land Use Plan to a commercial
land use designation as well as the approval of the requested rezoning to a com-
mercial designation. . Mr. Coll ins seconded the motion which carried 5-2.
(Chairman Lehnertz and Mr. Davis cast the dissenting votes.)
- 6 -