Loading...
Minutes 10-28-87MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING HELD AT PINELAND PLAZA, OCTOBER 28, 1987 AT 3:00 P. M PRESENT R~iri!yn Hackle rtin Jackier m~'Ryder 6bert Walshak Gary Lehnertz, Alternate Carmen Annunziato, Director of Planning Tim Cannon, Senior Planner ABSENT Walter "Marry" Trauger, Chairman (Excused) Robert Wandelt, Vice Chairman Harold Blanchette Bob Rousseau, Alternate Vice Mayor Marchese; Owen Anderson from the Chamber of Commerce; and Laurel Hubbard, Sun Sentinel, were present in the audience. Mr. Cannon called the workshop meeting to order at 3:10 Mrs. Huckle had a gap in her' zonipg book, and she told Mr. Annunziato she was still waiting for the pages. Mr. Annunziato promised to get everyone new Zoning Codes. P, CHANGES TO TEXT OF ZONING REGULATIONS TO BE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 1986 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL (E&A) REPORT Page 17 Mr. Cannon drew attention to the first paragraph and said it was a provision that allows the City and the applicant for annexation to avoid some unnecessary paperwork. If there is a developed property in the County or a property already under development in the County, Mr. Cannon did not think there was a need to go through an exhaustive analysis, on the part of the applicant, of the project that will be annexed. Whatever is approved in the County will be the same in the City, and it is not really a zoning issue at that point. This merely allows the Planning Director to waive some of those requirements and allows the City Commiss- ion to continue any requirements that were imposed by Palm Beach County and allows the C~ty Commission the option to imposD any additional requirements, if they are reasonable. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS; REZONING Mrs. Huckle asked where the references, such as 4.h.(2), came from. Mr. Cannon replied that it was in a section of - 1 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACB, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 the Zoning Code Mrs. ~uckle might not have. There was discussion as to who had the current Code. Mr. Cannon suggested they skip everything in Section 9 and go to Section 10. Page 18 Sec. 10. Board of Adjustmen~ Mrs. Huckle found a little ambiguity or cumbersomeness in paragraph "g- under "Powers and Duties, 3". She said there Ks a parallel in what the Board of Adjustment can find, and she pointed out that all of the items are parallel until you get to this one. Mrs. Huckle rewrote the paragraph and asked Mr. Cannon if he wished to compare it with the one he wrote. Mr. Cannon said the requirement they were suggesting in "g" would not'apply in all things. It would only apply through lot area or lot frontage, and it should be in there for those types of areas. Mrs. Huckle thought it should be parallel an~that it would be much clearer if it was parallel! with the other items. Mr. Walshak asked if the Board of Adjustment has final say on the variances. Mr. Cannon answered affirmatively and added tha~ any appeal from the Board of Adjustment goes to the~Circult C~t. Mr~ Walshak questioned whether that was a City Ordinanc~ or S~ate l~w. Mr ~ .......... was solely ~n ~e Zoning ~o~e, at ~h~"~n~Pl~ ~h~ was questioning that beca~s~ 6f a variance procedure the Plan~in~ ~nd Z&~ing (p~z)'~B0ard h~d. The Board was ruling on a pa~king i~% variance, 9nd th~ vote was not unanimous. Mr. W~I~h~k th6~ght the v~t~ was ~-2. It used to be that was the ~end ~of it but now, becaus~ of a City Ordinance, the City Comm'is~i~n is to rule when it is not unanimous. Mr. Can~on thought of one problem that was in consideration. The vas~ ~ajori~y of variances are single family lots. He was not q~ite certain that the City commission would want to be examining setbacks on the lots. Mr. Walshak pointed out ~hat theI ~ard iof Adjustment is in the same situation if it · s not ah Unanimous vote. Mrs. H~ckle explained that the Board of~Adju~tment is an avenue away from the P&Z Board the City' Co~misSion. It is even a further reach for the and person in~ured, beyond the Commission, sO she did not ~elieve ~hey could do anythi~ng. There Was discussion. - 2 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 Parking Lot Variances If someone wanted to, Mr. Walshak felt they could have sought the Court to overturn the parking lot variance. He clarified that on variancesr where the variance stops, the next procedure is the State Court. Mrs. Huckle advised that there is always the Building Board of Adjustment and Appeals on some of them. Under the old Ordinance, Mr. Walshak said th~ P&Z Board was quasi-judicial as far as parking lot variances were concerned. Mrs. Huckle disagreed. Mr Annunziato advised that the Parking Lot Ordinance is mo] e of an administerial act on the part of the Board. When they were talking about vari.ances to the zoning regulations, it ~as really a judicial review. Mr. Annunziato said there is ~ body of law that deals with zoning variances, and it is we~ ~ ~ie~eloped at this point. Parking lot Variances were so~ itI~ng that the ~ity created as a means t.o allow redevel- op~ in~ c6nsiStent w~ith the new parking lot regulations. The reason~ it was recommended that it be the P&Z BOard was beqaus~ the P&Z Board spent the mo.st time lo~king at site pl~s~'~nd would understand the ram~ficationsl of the specific re~la~i0ns in the ~rdinance. Mr. Annunziato elaborated and ad~] that they never built ~nto ~t a revle~ beyond the P&~ ~0~rd. Mr P&~ and th~ but agl of Wa] Walshak responded that at that point and time, when the ~Bo~rd had final say on that, the person could have sued t ' .~en ~t to a State Court. In that respect, he thought P&!Z Board was a quasi-judicial Board. It n~ver came up, ~lr. Annunziato said Mr. Walshak could be right. He sd. with Mrs. Huckle that it was not the same as the Board justment. Prior statements were repeated by Mr. ak and Mrs. Huckle. Mrsl. Huckle explained that the Commission upholds the Zoning Cod~. If someone is asking for something outside of the Zon,ing Code, the person's outlet is the Board of Adjustment. Thel Zoning Code is what the Commission has to uphold. Mr. Wal~hak was saying that maybe the City Commission should be given the opportunity "to get a shot at it." Mr. Cannon Suggested that it might be possible to have them appeal to the~C~ty Commission. Mr. Walshak further commented that the Ci~ ~mission is the elected body here. Until about two years ago, Mr. Cannon said there was a specific part of the Florida Statutes that dealt with Board o~ ~djust~ent and zoning variances. That section of the Sta~e was then deleted, and the City has a great deal of leeway. Mr. Cannon said he would put a note that appeals to MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 the City Commission should be allowed for zoning variances, and they will have it as something that should be considered. Mr. Walshak commented that the people are citizens of Boynton Beach. They come up before an appointed Board, and they do not have an opportunity to talk to their elected representatives. There was discussion. Vice Mayor Marchese commented that the Commissioners will be attending all kinds of meetings for variances. Mr. Annunziato said the Zoning Code is the Commission's policy statement. What variances are for is to address the unusual things that happen in land development with respect to zoning that could not be accommodated by the Zoning Code; for example, a small sized lot for a zoning change. The reason Mr. Walsh~k felt it was wrong was because they have ended up with a Board that has more authority in those particular matters than the elected City Commission. If what was said was true, and the City Commission denies a variance, and then the Board of AdSustment okay~ it, he pointed out that they have an appointed Board with more power than the City Commission, and that is wrong. Mr. Annunziato explained that the City Commission would not have actively denied it. It would be an administerial act to deny it. For example, if a man comes in to build a house on a substandard lot, the policy is set by the Commission with the adoption of the Code. Mr. Annunziato explained that the man needs an opportunity for relief from the specific requirements of the Zoning Code as they apply to his lot. He does not go to the Commission to get denied. The Commission has made its determination in the Zoning Code as a matter of policy. As it does not go to the Commission first, Mr. WaLshak stated that there could be an appeal to the City Commission in hardship cases. Mr. Annunziato advised that the permit would be denied by the Building Official. Mrs. Buckle explained that it goes to the Commission inasmuch as the Commission passes the Zoning Code. Mr. Walshak still felt the Commission should have the final say. Mr. Annunziato said they could include the language in the draft for the hearing before the Commission. Vice Mayor Marchese stated that every variance has the potential of coming back before the City Commission. Mr. Walshak advised that this one does not. There is no appeal back to the elected officials, and he emphasized that there should be. - 4 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 If the Board of Adjustment denies a request to construct a single family home on a lot that is undersized, where there is no opportunity to add square footage to the lot, Mr. Annunziato noted that Mr. Walshak was saying that person should have the opportunity to take that position to the City Commission if the decision was not unanimous. pagel8, d Mr. Cannon said this paragraph establishes a relationship between the density shown on the Comprehensive Plan and the possibility that the Board of Adjustment might have grounds for granting a variance to the lot area, which would cause the density to be higher than the density shown on the Comprehensive Plan. This issue has come up before with applications before the Board of Adjustment, and it seems that if a person has a hardship, they should be allowed to get a variance to the lot area, even if it would exceed the density on the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cannon thought this paragraph was necessary because the 1985 growth management legislation restates the language in the 1975 Act that the City cannot grant development orders that are in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. In certain cases, where variances are justified, it might be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cannon thought a body of law established that if a person has a genuine hard- ship, you cannot deny him any reasonable use of that property. He felt that would supersed~ the language that is in the 1985 growth management legislation. Mr. Annunziato thought they should limit that opportunity to single family dwellings of one unit. Otherwise, that could be construed as a means to request variances to densities in general. It was Mr. Cannon's thinking that if a person has a hardship, they can prove a hardship, and that would govern it. After explaining, Mr. Annunziato said if the intent is to allow "infill", "infill" should be permitted at the most restrictive land use form, that being a single family home. Otherwise, someone who has a very large lot might want to increase the density and, for some reason, might be able to get a variance from the Board of Adjustment. The Members present and Vice Mayor Marchese agreed it should be limited to single family homes. Pages 19 through 21 Mr.lCannon said on these pages there was a very detailed section concerning non-conforming lots. The E&A report - 5 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 noted that there were a large number of undeveloped, non- conforming lots in the City, and these lots oftentimes constitute a nuisance. The requirement that people go through the variance procedure, in some cases, impedes the use of these lots. In some cases, they are in changing neighborhoods, and it would be desirable to encourage development of these non-conforming lots rather than trying to strictly enforce the densities on the Comprehensive Plan and the densities on the zoning regulations. In coming up with the figures for the minimum lot frontage and lot area, Mr. Cannon used numbers that would pick up a reasonable number of those lots and eliminate the need to get a variance. The general rule with these non-conforming lots is if you have not more than two non-conforming lots, and they meet these requirements, you can build a single family house on each lot. If you have three lots and the lots combined exceed twice the frontage or lot area required by the zoning district, you can only develop it in conformity with the zoni~ng district regulations. In the R-i, R-iA, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts, Mr. Cannon said if you had up to two lots with a 50 foot frontage and a minimum 5,000 square foot lot area, you could build a single family house on each lot. Page 19, C. NONCONFORMING LOTS, 1, c Mr. Cannon called attention to the second paragraph where he said the total frontage is equal to 120 feet and said the paragraph should be changed to show that the total area is greater than 15,000 square feet and not 12,000 square feet in an R-lA district. He emphasized that should be just in the R-lA district. Pages 19 through 21 Mr. Cannon said one major change in respect to the Rule for non-conforming lots was that they eliminated any reference to when the person acquired the lot so that these rights to develop nonconforming lots would run with the property and not with the property ownership. He apprised the Members that there was some question as to the legality of the pro- vision in the existing Code that if you owned a non- conforming lot prior to 1978, you could develop it if you owned not more than three of those lots together. Theoretically, the right to develop property runs with the property and not with the property owner. MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 Mr. Cannon said the City gets numerous inquiries from people who want to buy non-conforming lots in the City. They find out that since they did not own the property prior to 1978, they would have to go for a variance. Mr. Cannon thought that intimidated a lot of people who want to buy lots so they can build a house. Mr. Cannon referred to Laneharts Subdivision, located primarily on N. E. llth, 12th, and 13th Streets, and said the lots generally are 42 to 45 feet wide. Because of the pattern of development in that area, a large number of individual lots are scattered through the area. Since there is such a problem with dumping and property mainten- ance in that area, Mr. Cannon thought it would be better to allow a special relaxation from the normal requirements in order to get as many of those lots deveioped as possible. The area is already developed at a density which corresponds to 42 to 45 foot 10ts. Page 20, ~aragraDh 3 Mr. Cannon called attention to the Rule for the R-1AA district, which is probably the most prevalent single family zoning distric5 in the City. Paragraph 3, b Mr. Cannon said the figures in this paragraph were chosen because it would pick up a substantial number of non-conform- ing lots. Looking at the subdivisions in that zoning district, there still is a substantial number with a 60 foot frontage with a lot area of close to 7,000 square feet. The normal requirement in an R-1AA zoning district is a 75 foot frontage and, if platted prior to 1975, the minimum lot area is 7,500 square feet. Mr. Annunziato~questioned whether it was clear to everyone what was beinglsuggested. He asked if it made sense as a way to encourage development of undeveloped single family lots around town without going through the burden of seeking a variance. Sort of a change of policy was being recommended. Mrs. Huckle thought it was a good idea. Mr. Lehnertz asked if Lake Boynton Estates was R-iA or R-1AA. Mr. Annunziato answered that it is R-lA. Mr. Cannon informed the Members that Leisureville is a Planned Unit Development (PUD). - 7 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 Dr. Jackier thought the change of policy was sensible. The Recording Secretary could not hear Mr. Walshak. Mr. Walshak agreed with the change of policy recommended and thought it was a smart thing. Paragraph 3, c, second paragraph Mr. Lehnertz noted the paragraph had a total area of greater than 15,000 square feet, and asked if that was assuming one owner or multiple owners. In other words, if there was a block like that which had two. owners, he wondered if they would be able to develop that under the existing zoning even if the two owners came in independently. If there was one owner and he could bring in an affidavit, which he is now required to do, certifying that the adjacent owners will not sell him any property, Mr. Cannon said the one owner could build on his p~operty if he had not more than two non- conforming lots and if the f~0ntage did not exceed 1501feet and the area of the lots d~d not exceed 15,.000 squar~ feet. and develop. Mr. Lehnertz observed that it did not talk about any ownership of lots or combination of lots. He interpreted it to say if you had that situation, irregardless of the number of owners, you have to develop it under the zoning require- ments for that particular district. Mr. Cannon thought they could clarify that by saying, "under the same ownership." Personally, Mr. Lehnertz preferred to see that it was irregardless of ownership, as far as a combination of lots was concerned because he perceived that as being a little bit more restrictive than otherwise. Mr. Cannon's argument against what Mr. Lehnertz was saying was that, theoretically, a person's property rights are not contingent on what another person decides to do with his property. He did not think the government could necessarily tell people to sell property to each other. Vice Mayor Marchese thought the Recording Secretary had difficulty hearing some of the Members, and he suggested that they use the second floor conference room, so everyone could hear each other. Mrs. Ramseyer, Recording Secretary, did not hear Mr. Walshak at first but stated she could now hear him. Some of the Members had not been using thezr microphones, but Mrs. Huckle recommended that tomorrow's - 8 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 meeting be held in the conference room. Vice Mayor Marchese said he would arrange it. Page 20 R-1AAB and R-iAAA At the bottom of the page, Mr. Cannon directed attention to the rules for R-1AAB and R-iAAA. He thought there were probably only half a dozen lots which did not conform to the R-1AAB regulations. However, they are large lots, and he did not think they had to go into great detail as far as the requirements for R-1AAB. There was discussion about the R-1AAB area between Swinton Avenue and the~aptist Church. Mr. Annunziato commented that, apparently, the price is so high that to develop it, the cost of the homes would be around $200,000 or more. He did not think the development community was convinced they could sell that home yet. Mrs. Huckle questioned whether two neighbors could have ~wo lots, side by s~de, hear about t~is, and each one could rite a note say'ing they will not s~ell. They could both get *Should be Presbyterian ~nurch. See 11/10/87 Minutes. lots to dump on. Where the R-1AAB lots is a nice section of the City, and Mr. Walsha~ thought they should be held to the Code as it is now. There is not that much of that particular property in the City. Mr. Watshak asked how many R-1AAA parcels are in the City. Mr. Annunziato answered, "Not many." Mr. Walshak informsd Mrs. Huckle that Lake Eden is R-1AAB, and he did not want to see that changed. Mr. Cannon knew exactly where the non-conforming lots were in the R-1AAB district, and he apprised the Members that there is a row of lots-along Sunset Drive, which is the same as S. W. 29th Street. Some of those are 80 foot lots with an 8,000 square foot lot area. Sunset Drive is the first east/west street going north from Chapel Hill Boulevard. Mr. Annunziato advised that.the developed oortions of that subdivision are on similarly sized lots. ~here were further comments. Mr. Walshak remarked that R-1AAB is the highest class of property in the City because the R-1AAA is out west. - 9 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 Mr. Annunziato asked Mr. Cannon how many non-conforming lots he was able to locate in R-1AAB. Mr. Cannon estimated there were eight to twelve. Mr. Annunziato said the Planning Department would catalog the language about the suggestions on variances, and they will have an opportunity to think about it between now and the Public ~earing. Be said they will also look at the area to see if the developed portions of it are on similarly sized lots because, if they are, there is no degradation of the zoning. In that zoning district, Mr. Cannon said there had not been any recombination of lots. Mr. Walshak warned that there might be. Mr. Annunziato said they will look at the property appraiser's maps. If people are buying or have developed on a lot and a half, he said they will report back. The Planning Department will also report back if it looks like the predominant form of development is that a person bought an 8,000 square foot lot and put a house on it, and if the zoning is not really consistent with what happened around it. Page 21 At the top of the page, Mr. Cannon said there was a paragraph similar to the paragraph in the section on variances, where they clarified the relationship between the density created by the non-conforming lots and the density in the Comprehensive Plan so that they are consistent. Page 21, 7 Mr. Cannon said this reflected the language already in the Zoning Code, where the setbacks that have to be followed on non-conforming lots are specified. However, there has been some clarification of the language. Mrs. ~uckle read, "Nonconforming lots which may be developed as of right. ", and said she did not understand "as of right." Mr. Cannon explained that it referred to lots that have been built in all of the preceding paragraphs. It means someone could apply for a building permit, and the Building Departmsnt could issue that person a permit without the person having to go through the variance procedure. Mr. Walshak informed Mrs. Huckle that "as of right" is a legal term. Vice Mayor Marchese suggested it be reworded so it would be more clear. Mr. Cannon said he would and further explained the words. Mr. Cannon said the last paragraph may be confusing. He added that paragraph because, an certain cases where you 10 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 have a non-conforming lot, even if they follow the setbacks, they might wind up with a living area which is less than the minimum living area specified in the Zoning Code, and they might wind up with a maximum lot coverage which is greater than the maximum lot coverage allowed in the Zoning Code. Mrs. Huckle asked is he was talking about percentagewise or actual. Mr. Cannon answered, "Actual." Vice Mayor Marchese asked Mr. Cannon to explain the last paragraph. If you have a non-conforming lot and if you lay out the setbacks according to these rules, 25% of depth for the front yard, 20% of depth for the side yard, etc., Mr. Cannon replied that you might wind up with a building envelope where the minimum living area that you could get in that building envelope would be less than the minimum living area required by the zoning district. Vice Mayor Marchese inquired whether Mr. Cannon meant where the footprint would be smaller than the requirement. Mr. Cannon answered affirmatively. Vice Mayor Marchese commented that "you go around in circles" when you read the proposed changes. Mrs. Huckle read from the last sentence in the last paragraph, "Furthermore, the~maximum lot coverage on such lots Shall be construed to be increased on such lots. " Vice Mayor Marchese had no fault with th~ idea. It was the words, and he asked if the language could be "cleaned up." Mr. Cannon tried ~to state things as simply as possible. Page 21, 8 Mr. Cannon said the City does not have any rules for construction with respect to non-conforming lots in commer- cial or industrial zoning districts. The issue has come up before in conversations with the Building Department. For example, where you have a commercially zoned lot and it ~s ~artially approved, can somebody add to that building if it · s a non-conforming lot? Mr o Cannon said the Building Department has decided that if you have a non-conforming lot in a commercial or industrial zoning district, you need to get a variance prior to developing that lot. However, no- where in the Zoning Code is that stated explicitly. The Planning Department thought it would be a good idea to come up with some specific rules of construction with respect to already developed non-conforming lots and undeveloped non- conforming lots in commercial zoning districts. Mr. Cannon explained. - ll MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 Mr. Cannon and Mr. Annunziato had discussed the $60,000 and 85% figures, and it seemed those figures were reasonable. After explaining, Mr. Cannon said either one of the figures could be changed. Mr. Annunziato said the City has a lot of non-conforming commercially zoned lots. The $60,000, 85% criteria allows somebody to make improvements to that property. If it falls below those thresholds, before he could add Square footage, that person would have to seek a variance. If it is less, Mr. Annunziato was saying the person did not need a variance, and if it was more, the person would need a variance. That did not sound right to Dr. Jackier. Mr. Annunziato explained that if the value of the structure is $60,000 and the size of the parcel substan- tially meets the Zoning Code requirements, that is the 85%. What they were Saying was that't~ere is probabiy current substantial value there, and it as unlikely that someone is than $60,000, they ws~e of r~ght~ seek a.pe~it seeking a variance ~riom Dr. Jackier asked why he would need the same thing if it cost more than ~60,0~0. If the person has a structure with a value of $60,000 in a commercially zoned district, Mr. Annunziato replied that at was unlikely that the person was going to destroy tha~ structure because he could not add square footage. It will continue as it is and potentially deteriorate. This w~l allow somebody to come in and add square! footage, pr0v~ing they meet all of the Codes, with- out going the variance route. Mr. Annunziato said those were questions he and Mr. Cannon talked a lot about. He admitted the~ w~re certainly subject to a lot of debate. Mr. Walshak asked how they came up with $60,000. Mr. Annunziato thought they just came up with it. There was discussion about a gas station. Mr. Annunziato pointed out that here, they were talking about square footage. ~ir. Walshak stated that he could probably agree with the 85%, which seemed reasonable to him. Mr. Annunziato told Dr. Jackier and Mr. Walshak that $60,000 was not that much for a commercial building. Mrs. ~uckle questioned putting a dollar value in at all, and she wondered if it could strictly be a percentage of sizes. Mr. Annunziato answered that you want to encourage people to tear down structures that are not substantial. Mrs. Huckle - 12 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 argued that it is discrimination for small entrepreneurs. Mr. Cannon thought there may be a few buildings which are houses located in commercial zoning districts, and they have the potential of being converted to office buildings. There, they might have a few buildings in the $60,000 to $70,000 range that are currently being used for residential use. Mr. Cannon imagined their values would jump if they were converted into an office or retail use. Instead of putting an absolute dollar figure, Mr. Lehnertz asked if they could put a percentage of the value of the existing structure. Mr. Walshak thought the dollar figure had to be there because it is done, basically, on an appraisal. He alluded to a Gul~ station being converted into a medical building. The property sold for $130,000. Mr. Annunziato interjected that the man did not have a lot area problem. He could have added the square footage and kept or not kept the building there. Mr. Walshak was saying the value was in the building, and he explained. Mrs. Huckle thought the man paid a lot for the corner on Federal Highway and said 2/3rds of the building has been torn away. There was discussion. If they are going to ask the smaller owner to get a variance, it seemed to Mrs. ~uckle that by going by the percentage of a lot area and frontage, etc., he would have to go for a variance anyway. She thought he should be able to do some- thing halfway decent and present his case. Mrs. Huckle felt they could get into a lot of trouble if they put a dollar figure on things. Dr. Jackier asked how often that would come up. Mr. Annunziato answered, "Probably six times a year." Vice Mayor Marchese felt this was a step in the right direction. Mrs. Huckle reiterated her arguments. Dr. Jackier asked how they would make a decision. Mrs. Huckle replied, "By the size of ~he property," and she elaborated. If he was reading it properly, Mr. Walshak pointed out that it was pu!t in to help rather than hinder. As it stands right now, they have to go through a variance procedure. They were softening it up a little bit. Mrs. Huckle liked the rest of it, but the dollar value bothered her. Mr. Cannon assured her that using dollar values with respect to non-conforming buildings and non-conforming lots is very common in zoning simply because if you reference it to the ProDerty appraiser's value that they assigned, it is very unambiguous as to whether the building fails in that particu- - 13 - MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 lar category. Mr. Walshak repeated his prior statements that they were softening the variance proceedings. As it stands right now, the little and big guys have to go through the procedure, irregardless of the criteria. Dr. Jackier pointed out that they are helping the big fellow. Mr. Annunziato asked how many commercial structures they thought there were that were valued at $260,000. Mr. Walshak thought there was a misunderstanding. He explained that they were not trying to hurt the little guy. The little guy still has to go through the procedure as it stands right now. Somebody that may make this criteria might not have to go through the variance procedure. Mr. Watshak emphasized that they were not changing the position of the small guy one way or the other. Mr. Annunziato commented that the position of the small guy may be enhanced, because he could not think of many commercial buildings that are not at least $60,0000. Mrs. Huckle was thinking of PeOple in the black section that might be encouraged to do something, but she could see what Mr. Walshak was saying. Mr. Annunziato said this was the kind of discussion the City had internally as well. Mrs. Huckle called attention to the fact that $60,000 was the value of the improvements too and not the value of the parcel. Mr. Annunziato agreed. Mrs. Huckle remarked that was considerably better. Mr. Annunziato clarified that the property appraiser appraises property by land and structure. Mrs. Huckle asked how a tax assessor would know the value of the improve- ments. Mr. Annunziato replied that the improvements in this regulation are construed to mean buildings. Mr. Cannon thought they should define it as the value of buildings according to the property appraiser. He thought they should key it into the property appraiser's words. Mr. Cannon asked if the Members were comfortable with the $60,000 and 85% rule. Mr. Annunziato said the Planning Department would look at the tax records and use the same language so it will not be ambiguous. Page 22 Paragraph 11 Mr. Cannon thought the conditional use standards should incorporate, by reference, the site plan standards. Right - 14 MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD WORKSHOP MEETING BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA OCTOBER 28, 1987 now~, the conditional use standards are somewhat limited to site plan standards. Mr. Cannon felt the City should also be able to apply any standards in Chapter 19 to conditional uses. Paragraph 12 This paragraph simply references the performance standards as a consideration in approving conditional uses. CONTENTS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION~ 5, o Mr. Cannon explained that this is virtually the same thing as a site plan submission. Any information required for a site plan should also be required for conditional use appli- cations. NEXT MEETING So other Board Members who might come and wonder where the meeting is being held would know, it was decided that the Board would meet in the Commission Chambers, Pineland Plaza, on Thursday, October 29, 1987 at 3:00 P. M. and then go upstairs to the second floor conference room. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting properly adjourned at 4:30 P. M. Patricia Ramseyer Recording Secretary (Two Tapes) - 15 -