LEGAL APPROVAL
The City of Boynton Beach
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING AND ZONING DMSON
100 E. Boynton Beach Boulevard
P.O. Box 310
Boynton Beach, Florida 33425-0310
TEL: 561-742-6260
FAX: 561-742-6259
October 3, 2005
www.boynton-beach.org
Ms. Bonnie MiskeljMs. Kim Glas-Castro
Ruden McClosky
222 Lakeview Drive - Ste. 800
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Re:
For:
File No.
Location:
The Arches
Request for abandonment - Rights-of- Way
ABAN 05-006
SE corner of the intersection of Ocean Avenue and SE 4th Street
Dear Ms. MiskeljMs. Glas-Castro:
Enclosed is the City of Boynton Beach Development Order for application item ABAN 05-006, which
represents approval of a request for abandonment of a portion of rights-of-way that abut The Arches at
Boynton Beach along SE 2nd Avenue, SE 4th Street, and Ocean Avenue and that are improved for public
sidewalks. The City Commission approved this abandonment on September 20, 2005.
Please note the Conditions of Approval relative to recording of easements, platting and
utilities.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office at (561) 742-
6260.
Sincerely,
W~
Michael W. Rumpf
Director of Planning & Zoning
MWR:jdc
Enc: Development Order
CC: Boynton Ventures LLC
S:\Planning\SHARED\WP\PROJECfS\ARCHES @ BB\ABAN 05-006 Sidewalk\Appvl Ltr.doc
"
DEVELOPMENT ORDER OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
PROJECT NAME: Arches
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Kim Glas-Castro I Bonnie Miskel of Ruden McClosky
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: 222 lakeview Drive Suite 800 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401
. {Ao
DATE OF HEARING RATIFICATION BEFORE CITY COMMISSION: September r2005
TYPE OF RELIEF SOUGHT: Request for abandonment of that portion of the right ~V91 T! . f:-----.
Avenue, SE 41h Street, Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway that abuts the propos d ~. 'l;-'--.L......~ }.' r',. i
Boynton Beach, and are improved with public sidewalks. U r (. r
LOCATtON OF PROPERTY: SW corner of Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway ~. ;
DRAWING(S): SEE EXHIBIT "B" A IT ACHED HERETO. DEPARTMENT OF DEVE-'
4, LQPMENJ
Development
. P & Z
Building
Engineering
Occ. License
Deputy City Clerk
.>
THIS MATTER came before the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida
appearing on the Consent Agenda on the date above. The City Commission hereby adopts the
findings and recommendation of the Community Redevelopment Agency Board, which Board found
as follows: .
OR
X THIS MA ITER came on to be heard before the City Commission of the City of Boynton
Beach, Florida on the date of hearing stated above. The City Commission having considered the
relief sought by the applicant and heard testimony from the applicant, members of city administrative
staff and the public finds as follows: ):
j
1. Application for the relief sought was made by the Applicant in a manner consistentWith
the requirements of the City's land Development Regulations.
7.
DATED:
2. The Applicant
/HAS
HAS NOT
established by substantial competent evidence a basis for the relief requested.
3.
The conditions for development requested by the Applicant, administrative staff, or
~uggested by the public and'supported by substantial competent evidence are as set
forth on Exhibit "C" with notation "Included".
4.
:. The Applica!Jt's application for relief is hereby
-:, ~GRANTED subject to the conditions referenced in paragraph 3 hereof.
DENIED
5.
This Order shall take effect immediately upon issuance by the City Clerk.
All further development on the property shall be made in accordance with the te
and conditions of this order.
6.
Other
J:\SHRDA T A\P/anning\SHARED\WP\FORMS\8Ianks to
City Clerk
er\Develop.Order Form-2001-Revised.doc
Exhibit 'A' - Location Map
,
~
100 200
400
600
800
I Feet
..'
EXHI BIT B
I
1
J
"
~I
f
I
'6-~- ~ i i ~ ~ J !,~-
~ : is i i ~~: ~9 ~ ~ g i ;:.
~ HI~~~~I~p SU~h~~~ 'i,'
7; M 1 ) 00 @ ~ @ @ ~ ,lfn:
, !
"'-"_n_..J
I
___iI' T._. ' _ T_ t\,IHI~
.~. . ,...
.._,.~~
~~ .
::: r;; ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~
---- , ~ ~ . ~ i ?~ ~ i:,'! ~
. /' ~ I'~' d.!. 11 . I
~ E; : ~ ~ i -.---------- ---.-moo r
,; ~ ---- ~ 'LmbJ ! : T. 11 I' ': (.
y ~ /- ,! 't I : J ~~. ~ 'I: : l; 1
..'c. ~t-7..l.."" ..... I , '~I: : d.!..
II . -I ~:. . ;~[~l~:! r = ii-i-;~.tt~-=~ r~~ . -::
" L........-_. J _ II '
II ,- ~...d _ ~.. r
L.!- = ::~i gl--- @II I"'~ d. /).. T~
h~ ~ ~~i~1--- 8~ I;~ ~~
I I Z~ c-- 013 B_1--- ~x" I d ~ ttftt .
"I' '--- 1~!l~;1-- . 'C I
t ~ og~~1-- I
I ><",~!i;.1--- 1
. '--- Ii\<~ ;~f-- 'I ,,(el
.Hi . ~. ':::f~I' . =~-~-=: .t:~~==-;;;;=';=l
~ , oo.:c", ,:1~ .... ,'oc, _ :>' ~J i
~ ! I i>
~..I t
~ I '-' r
~ .
Ul e
t=~; :~1= t' ~ :Ij'~
~ ~ != '" I
~ I . j _, A . ~ ~ : J
r===~____ j- . 't" ~1I
----- f'-- i - ! ~; 113 ~
~ :==~ I ~/~: I ~"hL]' :F!lIII~rf
r-- 'j) ~ r I'aIx1 .M I lJl I
L=!.!!J ~ Iii' r--f L~ ,
!.I.~.~ H .1.... ' ~ I
.h .:_~ ,._'\: _' ml_ '...:JV~_ '<;-.:r
....,... - r-~ ._~ " ...., -&iiUe^)'.:pu'l-W941J'iO"s~ _ .~ iL !'\,
! 11/" a 'II m~ N
"-"-"-'-"-"-"-"-"_00_,,_,,_,-,,-,-,,- - -"- _,_._._ .-..-._.J V
r I I
- .1 W-~- _ . an~9Nt' _UDa~o IS_D] ~ _ -___i_
""... ,I ...,,, J 1
- -:;':"-. . I
~ f'
r
.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
.
I
,i'
I
~~
!~
J
JI
J
I
1 .'"
(:
i
i
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
~
II
~
&I
11 .
-., --1
l.L.
~
-
II ..c:
o
ro
<D
:m
c
o
+J
C
~
o
m
,."~
'.
'.,
.,,~.
c
~.
0...
L-,
0:
0:
LLi
'0:
cl
::J:
0'
L-I
e>!
I
--
c,
CO'
-I
0..'
Q)
........
--'
en
'J
t
~.. ..
- ..[f";;~
CI)
Q)
.c
E
<(I
Q)
.c
I-
o
1-
,
,J
0;
:?- =
o . ~foi
'" a ~~
~ ,~O:
~ ~~~~
s:::l ~ ~~.
t(j i
,
"-+
EXHIBIT C
I
J
It 1S ,;;1>>,"'7
..~
~
~ ~
, .... I..
I.... .. . ~ .. ~ "l
OJ ..
I 'I:
-.:~. -,-~,j E88~ 8
· ,~~RB~:
I~ ~ .. ~~ti=1 EJti=hCdtd I
I~ ; ';;..LS' ~ N7'v'd ~ I I
I"'~.~ . '\w' . ~ .~~,.. .~
'.. ,. lj . ~ '" . ~ ~I
.' Cl .," q
.. .. .. . I
~ ~; :. ~fUJn: A~~:2U ~~
~ ~ .. ~
.
'- ~ ~-, ~ .:::
. ; . 1> .
1-
:~'1l
; f .-:-[ 6
. H~:~~ ~r
;;';.l;! ':;4~
.... S' 5'
,iUt' !f4!
11!i!! =kl~
:";;: ~t:: .J...
! "=f..:;"~
: ,....r.:J-!..
. t. .,,::111 ....
. i~:".r:!t
!-.l",hl
IJ~ .'.~:.
d.~!nH
, t .rl~"'))
1 .: ~~.. i l.f:
I H:i .: 1
. ~tf ;; -::
i....l1~ :
:tlJ.i: .:
;..."i:l ~
..
..
.7N/d
(..1- ~
Illr ~
~J:: .tr
l.!1j J..
iri!3F
.j:j~
.1lf! 3
i~H~
ii~f.
.". f
II!!
f tf"
: t....
. ,,~:;:.-:
~.. jt..
): !lj
~'f.f ::!
"':ICJ;@
....v ~~:J p.;.;..
: I
'!i f ~. i".i
. i~:~ t~j~
- ~: ~ ~i~.
~ \ 'l~"
!! I ; I. ., ""
l~lt;.~~
.. . ...
~t : 1..=: .
t~ l J" ·
! I ~ ~
-r
n I ~~ \,; [1 ·
~!}!j;'t." q
-. . J . t
Ii' k ~ ~ I lr-
lilH 'i~~~'
,\ 1 ... t .
d'd id~ ..
:t
, .
~:.
,,~~.l
l!d!
'-1,~..!'
."",~.
IJ~N
,
,
- I-
I
",
~
~I
. I
~J_
;1
''1t~ Ill:
, 'l~~JJ}~
l~r~~.~
fli~i~f~
ii, ~ I~ t
~
~
.'
...".~;:~: .
. "".."-
J;~,""~~)i~lgN~e~ 5 '
g I
5i::ii~ijiiiiiji I
Il, ~I II' &SR I
t f 5~ '
I i I
~~~gU un!
8
.... .. It.. alt.., t
I!JlII'J'UI
Ds I~IIB II
! lJ~ I I
I r
rl
It
I'!
811
u.
il;(
,,'
!I
I,
1I
r,.,t.
':','~ !
" .
t
, -?tn:
l;~~ ~I
~~~ t
'~'
... I
...-,-1
I
;i'~
:~
"'Q
~: I
r~ ~ 1
~~f\;~ .
s ~
'" f!,?
~ ....~
r- .
~ I'
~ "
:t f..,s
~ ~.-:~,
~f: ; , I
ll!'>~;; 1
'~.~ I
"I ~i :
~ ..R,
:. ~ ~~
~~ht.~ ~
),. '~ .::i'
~ ~. ~
~ ...r, ~
110: b ~,..
i:I ~i
~ ~" ~
., ,
~ I
o .
~N!'
~ .
!
. I
I
!
. /
'1
t.
.... ..,
1:'-
1
~~: : '.'
t ,
III
.~':'
~ll:~
..,l::~~.
'~ -
.-~.-+
ur ~ ICI;(Blir ~
'ill/I' ;:i~.1
bi( ; ~illJllll i
!AI j :I'filgl .
13 d~i
I,: 1,,!~Jj
f
i.. THE ARCHES AT BOYNTON BEACH
, ;: SKETCH or DESCRIPTION
J ,.. ORIGINAL TOWN Of' BOYNTON
SlCIIOH 21, 10WtISIP ., $WIH. lWfet ~ EA$I
EXHIBIT D
SC 2nd AVCNUC
(!!C. IWIIT-cr-W,oy)
I r~~'~ ':r
... "./..'~ . '.<>~, J :'..,
I' I;
! .
..... .~. r
SC ,~, AVCMIC
(itl' _-or-WAY)
.., ....1
, I
I I
I I
" 10 I
,,.
II!
III
III
III
III
III
::-1.
r II > Ie-
lif
P09.58'
I
r
I
I
t .,.
: t;- ~~--.'~~ / .
. ,},
,..1:'/'
'''..'''',,1'
-J. '..~" I
-:...' I
.\
" {'~~::f:'~~_ "I./'
..{",: ,,:"",,'
:!' ';
:::~~,;;/ .. '
r ,,~,;~' I'
I , I
.t;.~ ..f :
i,}_t"- ~>( I
(t", ).~f' ' I
I
:-",:J'I,
'r'
'.. I'"
I
. .~:." ~
I
I
I
r
I
t
I
.1.....
! III , SJlA.. 8m ,-
; , J , : Ie A as oc ~!~??8 =
It ~ I r-.- MmI. 110. _ ~ uc. NO. l' "If
J: -..t ... -- - ... . ...... ....... n ))OU
-.-- .'AllI ....~
I,""'
l'
I
I
I
I
I
"_. I.
r
I
I
" {'1 I
. I
I
,) I
,') I
!
/
I
I
I
I
Ol!
ii'
;t,
." r;Jf;{A!!.._ AVCNIJC
(!511' ___-WAy)
."
'.
./
I
I ~ ~
!~' f!
, ~f;;
: ~ ~ ~
I <>
I c;-,
(.".')m
I r-,o
, !'~ g
J ~
'.. ..1._..
<>
'U~
r C)
.:; ~
mi-
~~
";
I
I
I
I
I
I
'9 ~.~
5 r.: :g
~~ g
~
I
I
I
I
i
I
!
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
~~ I
rr I
;Ii! I
;}"i' I
!H ~
I.. '~q I
~;~I!'l :
~ .!'> I
"i -l ~ I
~ . ~I; ~
l!' ~''''~~I
~ ~~~I
':[11 ~91
~". ~....
.:r ~r
'; I fll
!ll~1
I"'~
~~,
I
",
J'
~}~:T"l
.: .... ~]'.'2"~~
I .
I
I ,. I
f 6~
I ":~
I
,
I ?
I ...
" 'I}
-'t-
,.. o.!>I
, ~~~
,~~~.
IT~
5~
'~
I
I
I
I
I
,_.,z
! -~ "-i.'"
r --I ..- '., ']
I r !
I I I
I r I
I I I
! I I
, 1t.:.,~~ -~ /;'1
I II
I :~
I
r . :1
-~ "-" ,
..
II
I
t
):.1-
EXHIBIT D
,LAND DESCRIPTION
RIGHT OF WAY VACATION
..ARCHES AT BOYNTON BEACH
PORTIONS OF SOUTHEAST 4TH STREET, SOUTHEAST 2ND AVENUE, OCEAN AVENUE AND
FEDERAL HIGHWAY (U.S. HIGHWAY NO.1, STATE ROAD NO.5, lYING ADJACENT TO
BLOCKS 7 AND 12, ORIGINAL TOWN OF BOYNTON, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF
AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 23 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF PALM BEACH
COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BLOCK 12, ORIGINAL TOWN OF BOYNTON (REVISED PLAT),
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 15, PAGE 18 OF SAID
PUBLIC RECORDS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOllOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID BLOCK 7;
THENCE SOUTH 00.02'09" WEST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID BLOCK 12, A DISTANCE
OF 312.55 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE
NORTHEAST (A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 69.00'03ft WEST FROM
THE RADIUS POINT OF THE NEXT DESCRIBED CURVE);
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 16.19
FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 49.54'09", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 14.10 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 88-31'35" EAST, 313.23 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST (A RADIAL LINE THROUGH SAID POINT
BEARS SOUTH 00.45'40" WEST FROM THE RADIUS POINT OF THE NEXT DESCRIBED
CURVE);
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 24.00
FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90.43'31", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 38.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00.02'09" EAST, 553.77 FEET TO A POINT ON THE ARC OF A NON-
TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHWEST (A RADlAll/NE THROUGH SAID POINT
BEARS SOUTH 89.57'51" EAST FROM THE RADIUS POINT OF THE NEXT DESCRIBED
CURVE);
THENCE NO'RlHWESTERl Y ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 24.00
FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 55-41'02", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 23.33 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 88.59'27" WEST, 336.83 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00.02'09': WEST, 8.63 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 88-59'27" EAST, 340.01 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00.02'09" WEST, 551.90 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE
SHEET 1 OF 3 SHEETS
EXHIBIT 0
CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST;
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00
FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90.58'24", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 39.69 FEET TO A POINT ON
THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 12 AND THE POINT OF TANGENCY;
THENCE NORTH 88"59'27" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 309.58;
THENCE NORTH 00"02'09" EAST, 312.55 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BLOCK 7;
THENCE NORTH 88"59'27" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 5.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
SAID LANDS L YJNG IN THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
CONTAINING 12,389 SQUARE FEET (0.284 ACRE), MORE OR LESS.
,,~ ".
....,;.<.:
LAND DESCRIPTION PREPARED BY:
SHAH, Dij,QTOS & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
3410 NORTH ANDREWS AVENUE EXTENSION
POMPANO BEACH, FLORIDA 33064
PREPARED BY: MDR
CHECKED BY:" . MDR'
PROJECT NO.: 0598BOO
FILE NAME: X:\CAD\SRUVEI0598AOO\RIGHT OF WAY VACATION
June 8, 2005
SHEET 2 OF 3 SHEETS
",
r.
EXHIBIT "E"
Conditions of Approval
Project name: The Arches
File number: ABAN 05-006
Reference: Sidewalk Abandonments
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PUBLIC WORKS- General
Comments: None X
PUBLIC WORKS- Traffic
Comments: None X
UTILITIES
Comments:
1. All existing City utilities (water, wastewater and stormwater conduits) must X
be relocated or encased to continue their functional purpose in the area.
2. All other utility services within this corridor shall be relocated at the X
applicant's expense.
""''''.<.;,-...;:,.
FIRE
Comments: None X
POLICE
Comments: None X
ENGINEERING DIVISION
Comments:
3. The abandorunent of the sidewalk segments within the right-of-ways shall be X
so deshmajed on a new boundary record plat to reflect the same.
BUILDING DIVISION
Comments: None X
PARKS AND RECREATION
Comments: None X
FORESTERlENVIRONMENT ALIST
Comments: None X
Conditions of Approval
2
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE REJECT
PLANN1NG AND ZONING
Comments:
4. Should the City Commission approve the abandonment request, the applicant X
would need to provide executed easements, satisfactory to the City Attorney,
prior to issuance of the first permit.
PRlV A TE UTILITIES
Comments:
5. Adelphia has no objection to the abandonment as long as Adelphia facilities X
are granted the proper easements and any relocation of facilities are at the
expense of the applicant.
6. Florida Power & Light has no objection to the abandonment contingent X
upon the following conditions:
a) FPL acquiring all additional easements for any and all existing or
proposed FPL facilities necessary to service any and aJ] existing
and proposed future construction requiring electrical service at
the abandoned site. This includes but is not limited to ten (10)
foot easements adjacent to both sides of an major thoroughfares.
...~....::.
- 4".~
b) Written approval of the City of Boynton Beach and FDOT is
required for the removal of any of the streetlights.
c) Any and aJ] cost resulting with the relocation or removal of FPL
facilities, due to said abandonment, are to be paid by the
applicant.
7. Florida Public Utilities Company has no objection to the abandonment X
contingent upon the following conditions:
a) All related relocation expenses will be paid by the party
requesting the abandonment by the date specified by Florida
. ':' Public Utilities Company.
b) A separate easement must be granted to Florida Public Utilities
Company within the referenced area. An related easement
expenses will be paid by the party requesting the abandonment
by the date specified by Florida Public Utilities Company.
8. Bellsouth has no objection to the abandonment as long as Bellsouth facilities X
are granted the proper easements and any relocation of facilities are at the
expense of the applicant
ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD
)
)
.. ",J>
DEPARTMENTS INCLUDE . _ REJECT
CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. None X
ADDITIONAL CITY COMMISSION CONDITIONS
Comments:
1. To be detennined. ~
S:\Planning\SHARED\ WP\PROJECTS\ARCHES\ABAN 05-006 (Sidewalks)\COAdoc
e" ......~.
~..,".c:;
.~
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
August 30, 2005
Description:
Request for abandonment of a portion of an
alley (Southeast 1 st Place), located
immediately east of SE 4th Street, in
connection with the proposed Arches
development
Ed Breese, Principal Planner, stated this abandonment was the rest of an alley that had been
partially abandoned when the Arches first appeared before the City. He did not believe the City
had any further use for this alley and staff recommended abandonment of it. The Utilities
Department recommended approval with conditions. All the other utility providers are
recommending approval with conditions. BellSouth will be retaining their utilities in place and a
12-foot wide utility easement will be dedicated to BellSouth for their underground conduit,
which is slated to remain in place, and a fifteen-foot access has been provided in the site plan
for the Arches.
Bonnie Miskel, appearing on behalf of the applicant, stated they were in agreement with all
conditions.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor for the public to speak, and closed it when no one came
fOlWard.
Motion
Ms. Horenburger moved to approve the request for abandonment of a portion of an alley
known as Southeast 1st Place located immediately east of S.E. 4th Street, in connection with the
proposed Arches development. Mr. Myott seconded the motion that passed 7-0.
Abandonment - Sidewalk
3.
Project:
Agent:
Description:
Arches (Sidewalk) (ABAN 05-006)
Bonnie Miskel, Esq., Kim Glas-Castro, AICP,
Ruden McClosky
Boynton Ventures I, lLC
Southwest corner of Ocean Avenue and
Federal Highway
Request for abandonment of a portion of
rights-of-way that abut the Arches at
Boynton Beach along SE 2nd Avenue, SE 4th
Street, Ocean Avenue and Federal Highway
and that are improved for public sidewalks
Owner:
location:
Ed Breese, Principal Planner, reported that this item represented the sidewalk portions of the
rights-of-way that border the project. According to the applicant, "The requested vacation of
the sidewalks will allow the development effort to include widening of the pedestrian amenities
with plazas, covered arcades, and expanded pedestrian ways. These pedestrian-oriented
facilities could not otherwise be improved within the public right-of-way. The requested
vacation will not prevent other property owners from access to and from their property, will not
restrict pedestrian access along the subject roadways, and will not adversely impact other
6
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
August 30, 2005
properties." Staff looked at this request and the Engineering and Planning & Zoning
Departments recommend denial of the request. Engineering indicated that attempting to create
any partial roadway abandonments such as these would set an extremely bad precedent for the
City and be difficult to justify. Planning & Zoning believed, from discussions with the applicant,
that one of the reasons they want the abandonment is for the additional density they would
gain by having control over this property. Staff calculated the applicant would have 20
additional dwelling units if the abandonment were granted. Also, staff looked at the applicant's
reasoning as to why they were looking for this abandonment: to improve pedestrian amenities,
plazas, and so on. Those are items that can be done with an agreement with the City.
Improvements can be made within the rights-of-way that would not necessitate abandonment.
When staff looks at right-of-way abandonments, one of the things it looks at is whether the
underlying purpose of that right-of-way is still to be served or is no longer viable. These are
sidewalks that would rim the project and staff believes that the purpose for that right-of-way is
still to be served. Staff recommended denial of the request. The utility interests have no
objection, with the same conditions as heard on the previous two applications.
Bonnie Miskel, attorney for the applicant, agreed that the applicant would lose 20 dwelling
units if this request were denied. She iterated that the request was to take certain publicly
dedicated sidewalk property and convert it to private ownership. This request was not
unorthodox and in many other jurisdictions, sidewalks are dealt with through sidewalk
easements. There are two different ways of approaching it: one is a platted or public dedication
through a plat or a deed, and the other is pursuant to an easement. Ms. Miskel said a sidewalk
easement could provide the City with everything that a deed would do. A sidewalk easement
would also do some things that a public dedication would not: 1) It would put liability on the
part of the abutting owner, so they too would be liable for problems with the sidewalks such as
flaws, or if someone fell and got hurt; and 2) A sidewalk easement for the public, ingress and
egress, would put the burden of maintenance on the landowner, the developer. A public
dedication typically would not do that. Usually, roads that are rights-of-way are the
responsibility of the local government. They were not simply asking to convert public property
to private property. They were asking to convert a public sidewalk to a sidewalk with an
easement. The same rights the City would have with a deed would go with the sidewalk
easement.
Ms. Miskel looked into the functions, powers, and duties of the CRA and read for the benefit of
the audience: "The CRA Board shall have the authority and duty to consider and recommend
upon applications as hereinafter set forth, after first considering the recommendations of its
staff and after a determination of fact that the application before it would do the following: 1)
contribute to the reduction and slum and blighted conditions, and 2) enhance the tax base, and
3) implement and further the intent and purpose of the City's redevelopment plan." What the
applicant was asking for would do all three of these things and to deny it would be inconsistent
with these objectives.
Ms. Miskel believed there was general agreement that this project would reduce blight and
slum, since they were taking less productive, dilapidated property and creating a 39,000 square
foot commercial mixed-use development on five acres. The expansion of the tax base as a
result of this project was not in dispute. Approving this request would give the City an
opportunity to expand square footage, add twenty dwelling units, and further enhance its tax
7
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
August 30, 2005
base. It is done in many other jurisdictions and would give the City all the same rights it had
presently.
Ms. Miskel referred to staff's comment that granting this would create a dangerous precedent.
She reminded the board of the action it took in Marina Village, for example. This project has
public parking spaces located within a private parking garage. Instead of saying we want you
to take a piece of your property and put 80 spaces on it, that would come off the tax map, we
now have spaces in a private parking structure that stay on the tax map. They were asking the
board to do the same thing here. " Instead of making it public property, leave it on the tax rolls
and get tax benefits. "
Chair Heavilin gave Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, an opportunity to speak, apologizing
for not giving her the opportunity prior to this. The board had just instituted a change in the
procedures to allow this.
Vivian Brooks, CRA Planning Director, concurred with City staff that this was not a good idea. It
did not meet the criteria for abandonment. The intent is for additional density, which is not
consistent with the Federal Highway Corridor Plan or the zoning.
Chair Heavilin opened the floor for the public to speak.
Robert Brown, 701 S. Seacrest Boulevard, spoke in favor of the abandonment for the tax
base enhancement and the potential of using the $50K to $60K a year that the 20 additional
units would provide to the City to offset benefits and/or bonuses for the employees. Mr. Brown
mentioned the lifeguards who were being paid $10.60 an hour to save lives and other issues
with the Police and Fire unions.
Dave Kelley, Assistant Director of Public Works, City Engineer, and the City's surveyor and
mapper, declared he had written a memorandum to the Planning & Zoning Division saying the
abandonment procedures of the City followed Chapter 336.093 through .12 of the Florida
Statutes where any public right-of-way abandoned is divided equally between the two adjacent
property owners. If a ten-foot sidewalk were divided in half, five feet would go to one owner
and five feet to the existing City right-of-way. This would mean that any abandonment would
only take place on half of what had been requested, even if they regranted it back as a public
easement for sidewalk purposes and whatever might be underneath it. This creates a potential
nightmare throughout all rights-of-way in the City because there were many people watching to
see what happened with this application. The City believed that granting this request for
abandonment would hamper its ability to follow the abandonment procedures required by
Florida Statute. The Department of Engineering expressed opposition to this request for
abandonment and requested the board's consideration of its findings.
Ms. Miskel did not dispute what Mr. Kelley stated about Chapter 336, but believed his
interpretation was incorrect. The interpretation was based on taking a right-of-way, an entire
street, as they did with S.E. 1st Place, or S.E. 1st Avenue, and abandoning the entire right-of-
way. He was correct if it were platted in such a way where the right-of-way did not end up all
on the perimeter of a plat (at which point it would all go to one owner). If it were in the center
of a plat with properties on each side, which is the case here, then it would be divided in the
8
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
August 30, 2005
center and half would go to one landowner abutting the right-of-way, and the other half would
go to the other owner. But, the City's holding of a street as right-of-way was not the same as
an abutting owner who owns in fee simple. The City is not considered, under the law, as an
owner as would be the case if a private property owner owned on each side. This was true
because, 1) the City typically did not pay consideration if done by plat for the street, and 2)
right-of-way is not considered the same as fee simple title. Mr. Kelley's interpretation was
incorrect and she wanted to state this for the record.
Chair Heavilin closed the floor for public comment since no one else from the public wished to
speak.
Ms. Horenburger asked to hear Attorney Spillias' opinion in the matter.
Attorney Spillias commented on abandonments in general, saying the board had a policy
decision to make. It had heard information presented by the City indicating its factual basis for
saying no, and information presented by the applicant indicating a factual basis for saying yes.
They were really dealing with two issues. The first was that abandoning a right-of-way should
only be done if there is no further public need or purpose for the right-of-way. Staff says there
is a public need and purpose for the right-of-way. The applicant is saying the City would not
lose that. In regard to the benefit to the applicant, the opinion is that abandonments should
not be done just to favor one particular property owner. The applicant expressed the belief that
there were benefits beyond the benefits the applicant would receive, benefits that would further
the purposes of the CRA. The board had enough information to provide the basis for going
either way in this matter, once it decided from a policy standpoint what it wished to do.
Attorney Spillias agreed with Ms. Miskel about the general law. While generally land goes one
half to one abutting property and the other half to the other owner, it depends on the plat. If it
were platted with the right-of-way on the border of the plat, it could all go back to the original
property owner abutting it on the one side. He had not looked at the plat and did not know how
the right-of-way was conveyed to the City, whether by dedication or deed, and such issues
could impact the way this would be divided. The City Attorney could be asked to opine on this
before the matter gets to the City Commission, once the board made a determination on
whether it believed that for all other purposes, it should or should not be abandoned. The
board's decision would depend on which information they gave the most credence to in the role
of board members.
Chair Heavilin said the background information stated the sidewalks were dedicated for
perpetual use by the public. Attorney Spillias said he would need to see the plat to make a
determination and he did not have enough information to give a definitive answer in regard to
the statutory reference in this case.
Motion
Mr. Barretta moved to approve the request for abandonment of a portion of rights-of-way that
abut the Arches at Boynton Beach along SE 2nd Avenue, SE 4th Street, Ocean Avenue and
Federal Highway and that are improved for public sidewalks. Mr. DeMarco seconded the
motion.
9
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
August 30, 2005
Mr. Myott stated approving this would change the engineering standards of the City and affect
the right-of-way width that had been consistent with the City grid, change plat maps, and plans
for many things in the future. It would also set a precedent for allowing other people to ask for
whole streets. He disagreed that the board should set such a precedent. He also believes that a
lot line is never big enough for a developer and they always want more. The board had been
very, very accommodating to this developer. He thought the City might have a right to the
sidewalk, but perhaps an individual citizen would not, because it was private property. He
thought that the City would have enough units by the time the town was built out.
Vice Chair Tillman agreed with Mr. Myott. He tried to determine whether the applicant had a
hardship, but did not see a hardship. He was not prepared to set a precedent that would
overturn submissions and what was platted for the City of Boynton Beach. He especially did not
want to set a precedent that would have a major impact on what would be asked in subsequent
projects in the future.
Mr. Barretta supported the abandonment because there were other properties in the City where
the property line was adjacent to the curb. He had done renovations on such properties in the
City of Boynton Beach and it would give the architect a little more design latitude. He did not
think that it took anything away from the City or the citizenry and did increase the tax base.
Ms. Horenburger stated they had been abandoning alleyways all over the City to benefit
development, and she did not see how this was very different. If the sidewalks were abandoned
to the developer, and the owner got the additional units and had ownership of the sidewalks,
could the owner restrict or put barriers up or fences to prevent people from walking on the
sidewalk? Attorney Spillias responded that this would not be the case if the City had a perpetual
easement.
Ms. Miskel responded that part of their offer was that there would be a perpetual easement for
the benefit of the public. The City would have the same scope of action it had otherwise.
Ms. Horenburger said since there was some question about how this was platted, and so forth,
whether the board could vote to pass this without a recommendation to the City Commission
until a legal opinion could be obtained on the platting and related legal issues, and leave it up
to the City Commission. Attorney Spillias said the board could do that, but it should keep in
mind there was a policy aspect of this decision and a narrow issue that he could not provide an
answer to that the City Attorney would have more time to research. Ms. Horenburger did not
feel the board had enough information to say it would not set a precedent, since there was no
legal opinion on it. Chair Heavilin did not recommend it.
Chair Heavilin did not see a public need for the abandonment. Most of the abandonments the
CRA had done were going through properties and this application included four major streets,
including Federal Highway. She saw the increased tax benefits, but hoped the CRA was never
driven by economics, but by the good for the people, public use, and quality projects.
Mr. Myott said at least three City staff departments recommended denial. They were experts in
their fields of utilities, community redevelopment, planning and zoning, and the depth of the
10
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
August 30, 2005
history and the comprehensive plan for the City. He thought this was a very strong
recommendation for denial.
Ms. Miskel said a subsequent letter had been given to staff removing the Federal Highway
portion of the request, so this request was for S.E. 2nd Street, S.E. 4th Street, and Ocean
Avenue. For the record, on S.E. 4th Street, a portion of the sidewalk that was already located on
4th Street was private property, and belonged to her client. They would offer to give an
easement over that as a condition to this approval. Right now, it was not subject to any
dedication or easements.
Mr. DeMarco hoped to find compromise. He understood it did not provide the public with access
to the area. He thought the board had acted on a similar abandonment with the Gulfstream
project. He thought the increased revenue for the City would be a good thing and wanted this
to be resolved between staff and the applicant.
Mr. Fenton asked for and received confirmation that the applicant was looking for abandonment
of the sidewalk to the north, south, and west, and not Federal Highway. Ms. Miskel agreed. Mr.
Fenton asked Ms. Miskel to elaborate on her earlier comment that this was not unusual. Ms.
Miskel stated that West Palm had many sidewalks subject to a sidewalk easement versus
platted dedications. Another location where it had been done was in Wellington particularly as it
relates to residential properties where sidewalks are located within the resident's property with
swales on each side. It is most common in that regard. lake Worth also has sidewalk
easements, because she had done one there.
Mr. Myott referred to the Ocean Avenue Improvement project where the City planned new
sidewalks, light fixtures, landscaping, tree grates, curbing, parking, and so forth. If the City
wanted to redo Ocean Avenue, this would have an affect because the City would not be
working on its own land, but on the developer's land. He felt the ability to have control of a
whole side of a street for one whole block would be taken away if this were passed. "If you
don't own it, you can't control it."
Ms. Miskel said that the City could control it because two of the easements she had prepared
provide the City unilateral discretion on whatever it chooses to locate in the area. The City could
proscribe whatever it wanted in the way of size of sidewalk, building material, landscaping,
green area, and so forth, providing the City's own legal standards were met.
Ms. Miskel said the approved site plan showed the improvements that were planned for the
sidewalk areas. They had agreed to all conditions of the site plan as it related to location, size,
materials, landscaping, and so forth. Staff mentioned if the City still needed the sidewalk, the
purpose was still there. However, when purposes could be achieved by other measures, the
purpose did disappear. To her, the question was, "Do you have to have a sidewalk by virtue of
a deed or a plat, or can you have one by virtue of an easement?" She was before the board to
say it could be done by easement in exactly the way the City desired. It did not need to be by
deed. She believed the purpose of a dedication or plat disappears when the purpose can be
served in some other way. They were offering that way. She agreed with Mr. Myott that
someone could come along and request abandonment of a street in the future; however, the
board had the discretion to decide whether or not it wanted to do it. Her client was willing to
11
Meeting Minutes
Community Redevelopment Agency Special Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
August 30, 2005
accept the responsibility of someone tripping and falling on a sidewalk, but would not be willing
to accept the liability and responsibility for a road where car accidents could occur.
Mr. Fenton asked Mr. Barretta if he would consider amending his motion to remove the
reference to Federal Highway, and Mr. Barretta agreed to do so. Mr. DeMarco agreed also.
Mr. Barretta added a comment that while the request might seem highly unusual, as Ms. Miskel
said, it was not unusual and happened all the time. He had worked on many projects where the
sidewalks were conveyed by easement as opposed to dedication. They were not creating
something that had never been done, just something people were unfamiliar with.
Ed Breese, Principal Planner, responded that Mr. Barretta's comment was one of the three
points that staff had brought forward - the fact that it could happen elsewhere and they could
have haphazard right-of-way lines. Also, taking public land for private gain and purpose did not
sit well with staff and a lot of other people.
Mr. Barretta called the question on the motion on the floor. The Recording Secretary called the
roll at the request of Chair Heavilin.
The motion passed 4-3, Chair Heavi/in, Vice Chair Tillman, and Mr. Myott dissenting.
VII. Adjournment
Since there was no further business before the board, the meeting was duly adjourned at 8:28
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
SUS,4}t etJil11tS
Susan Collins
Recording Secretary
(083105)
12