Loading...
Minutes 06-30-86 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, MONDAY, JUNE 30, 1986 AT 7:30 P. M. PRESEN~ Walter "Marty" Trauger, Chairman Carmen Annunziato, Garry winter, Vice Chairman Planning Director George deLong Tim Cannon, Marilyn Huckle Senior City Planner John Pagliarulo Simon Ryder Robert Wandelt Norman Gregory, Alternate William Schultz, Alternate Chairman Trauger called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. and acknowledged the presence in the audience of Mayor Nick !Cassandra; Vice Mayor Carl zimmerman; Owen Anderson, Executive Vice President, Greater Boynton Beach Chamber of iCommerce; the Alternate Members; and Bill Cooper, The Post. Chairman Trauger then introduced the'Board Members, Mr. Annunziato, Mr. Cannon, the Recording Secretary, and Mary April, Court Reporter for Martin Perry, Esq. READING AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Members concurred with Chairman Trauger's suggestion that they forego the approval of the minutes at this time. ANNOUNCEMENTS None. COMMUNICATIONS None. OLD BUSINESS Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report, 1986 Mr. Cannon informed the Members they had a total of forty proposed changes, which were contained in three packets. The first packet contained comments 1 through 25. Chairman Trauger pointed out that those comments came out of the meeting of June 10. Mr. Cannon said Attachment A in the first packet consisted of comments made by the City Staff and the comments made - 1 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 by the Planning and zoning (P&Z) Board. He said the next set of comments were attached to the agenda which went out on June 23rd, and they contained comments received at the public gearing. They were numbers 1 through 36. Additional comments, received last week, were attached to tonight's agenda and numbered 37 through 40. After discussion, it was decided by the Members that they should take one item at a time and vote on it. HOUSING ELEMENT (1) Adult congregate living facilities. Mr. deLong asked if they were going to discuss the maximums and minimums at this time. Mr. Annunziato did not think they were prepared to discuss what those criterias should be. That would be the subject of a development regulation or a zoning Ordinance Amendment. Mr. Ryder moved to accept Comment 1. From their comments, Mr. deLong understood it would come back to the Board, and he seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. (2) Building Department Mr. Cannon explained that they were recommending that the City Staff periodically monitor City development regulations, not only with respect to possible glitches or inadequacies, but also with problems of responsibility and assignments of responsibility and administration. In the Comprehensive Plan, it started out being directed specifically towards the Building Code. The Building Department objected. Because the Building Code, in essence, is adopted by the State, the city can modify the Building Code to some extent, if it is just on the basis of local conditions. Mr. Cannon said it was decided the monitoring of the Codes for performance is not only a good idea for the Building Code but for the entire set of development regulations. They recommended that once or twice a year, the City Staff look at the development regulations, how they are performing, and whether certain requirements are excessive or deficient and also the problems as far as responsibility of the Staff. Mr. Ryder asked if Mr. Cannon meant the Building Department when he said "City Staff". Mr. Cannon replied that the Building Department administers a majority of the City development regulations. The Engineering Department - 2 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 administers the subdivision regulations, and the Planning Department participates. Mr. Ryder asked if Mr. Cannon felt all of the regulations on the next page of the report should be cited in the evalu- ation or recommendation with regard to them being monitored. Mr. Cannon answered that those Sections of the Code were cited for the purpose of clarity. He agreed with Mr. Ryder that they do not necessarily need to be repeated at this point, and it is not necessary that they be in the Evaluation and Appraisal (E&A) Report. In the monitoring, Mr. deLong asked if they would use the people from the Building Department. Mr. Annunziato mentioned the Building, Engineering, Planning, and Public works Departments and said all of them are involved in Code monitoring in one way or the other, and all of them are more familiar with the different Codes. It is obvious to them that there are some problems that need to be monitored. Mr. d. observed that the Building Department was being .ed in the monitoring, but not solely included. Mr. Ryder read from page 1, line 5, under "(2) Building Department", "It is recommended by the Planning Department that the Building Department monitor construction in the city,. " Mr. Cannon explained that referred specifically to the ~u~lding Code, which is administered solely by the Building Department. However, they expanded beyond the recommendation which dealt solely with the Building Code, so it will include all of the City development regulations. Mr. Wandelt told Mr. Ryder to read further. Line 9 says, " ."the Planning Department recommends that the City staff regulary report problems of performance or administration " Mr. Annunziato for all land development regulations . amplif---~ed that the new Comprehensive Pl~n~ing Act also requires the creation of a Land Development Regulation Commission. It may be the Local Planning Agency that will perform that function. The Planning Department recommended that all of the land development regulations should be monitored on a continuing basis so that they could be up- dated, problems could be analyzed and corrected during the Code amendments, and a report could be prepared. Mr. Ryder still thought it needed some change and again read line 5 from page 1, and asked Mr. Annunziato what he would suggest. Mr. Annunziato replied that the intent was very clear, and it should be the city Staff and not exclusively the Building Department. - 3 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Mr. Pagliarulo noted a reference to building materials, and asked how the City would monitor building materials. Mr. Annunziato answered that the City has the authority to amend the local amendment process of Building Codes. One of the problems they had with this recommendation initially was that the Building Department felt it could not be involved with contractor quality control. Therefore, they objected to that recommendation, and that may still be the case. Mr. Cannon added that obviously, the city cannot set up its own formal evaluation process for the evaluation of building materials. When they discover incurable problems (problems that become obvious in the performance of materials), it .should be reported on a regular basis to the City Manager. iThat same report should be transmitted to the Southern B Conference. Mr. Cannon said they realize the City is ed to the extent to which it can amend the Building Code. If there are problems with performance that become apparent under repeated cases with certain materials, they should not go unnoticed. Chairman Trauger asked if the purpose of the Building Depart- ment inspections did not act as an enforcement of quality control against the Contractors. Mr. Annunziato replied that the Building Department accepts no responsibility for quality control. Chairman Trauger was not speaking of materials but of workmanship. Mr. Annunziato answered that the Building Department accepts no responsibility for the quality of workmanship. The recommendation was not specifi- cally limited to the recommendation that the Building Depart- ment watch materials and quality control. The perceived problem is greater than that. For example, the City has to 10ok at its parking lot regulations, whether they make sense, are consistent with Handicapped Code requirements, other Codes have changed which impact on our Motion Mr. Ryder moved that item 2 be approved with the revision that instead of Building Department, the words "city Staff" be included with regard to monitoring the construction in the city. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion. Mr. deLong asked if the city Staff could monitor construction in the City. Mr. Cannon answered that they could monitor not just construction but the performance of all of the regulations (subdivision regulations, Landscape Code, includ- - 4 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 ing the Building Code). Mr. deLong asked if the City had not been monitoring that on a regular basis. Mr. Annunziato answered, "Not in a consolidated manner." He said they obviously need to talk about the problems with the land development regulations. This suggests that process needs to be somewhat formalized. Mr. deLong asked if the City has the present manpower to do this. Mr. Annunziato informed him that the City does it every day. Mr. deLong determined they were not worrying about budgeting for additional staff, etc. Mr. Cannon said the implementation of the recommendation would probably consist of the City department heads making a report once or twice a year to the City Manager. Mr. deLong always believed, "That government governs best that governs least." He felt they would go to a point and provide overkill, and that alarmed him. Mr. deLong did not want to get into a situation where a person cannot do what he wants to do any more, and he explained. Mr. deLong added that they would put a bureaucrat into a position of saying, "I want x y z's transfOrmer used. I do not want that one used." He wanted to circumvent and get away from those kinds of things and said it was that kind of bureaucracy that alarms him. Mr. deLong did not know how wide the City's powers were going to be by, as Mr. Ryder said earlier, enumerating all of those things. He thought it was an ongoing situation the City already had and wondered why they now had to put it into this language and enumerate all of those items. His other apprehension was that he did not want to take anything away from the Building Department and did not think they should infringe upon the Building Department's authority. That was why he wanted to make the point that they be included in the monitoring City Staff that does these things. Mr. Cannon clarified that this was perceived by the Planning Department as a management tool, that is, the city's development regulations are intended to accomplish certain tangible objectives. They think it is a good idea, on a regular basis, that the City department heads ask themselves if they are accomplishing those tangible objectives, and Mr. Cannon elaborated. He said there is no point in having development regulations if they are not doing what they are supposed to do. Mr. Annunziato added that several comments they received from department heads said there are regulations which are - 5 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 no longer appropriate and not enforceable. Mrs. Buckle asked if this type of thing was spelled out in the original Comprehensive Land Use Plan. She wondered if perhaps it was something the City has been doing, and they just want to specify they are doing it and make it a part of the Compre- hensive Plan. Unless it would get too regulatory, Mrs. Buckle could not see any problem with it. It would just be spelling out something they do anyway. When they bring recommendations to amend certain land deve- lopment regulations to the P&Z Board, Mr. Annunziato said it is often the result of problems perceived by some member of the land development regulation staff (whether it is the Building Department, Utilities Department, or Engineering Department) that need to be corrected. The Planning Depart- ment was suggesting that the process become more formal. A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 6-1. Mr. deLong opposed the motion. (3) city Engineer - Recommended Against Prohibiting Parking in Yards and Swales Since Parking on Street Pavement Would Block Traffic Lanes Mr. Cannon reported that the city Engineer did not think this was enforceable from a practical standpoint, and he also expressed it would block traffic lanes on local streets. Mr. Cannon thought the City Engineer made some valid points. If the City did prohibit parking on swales, it is very likely that in most of the older areas of town, you would have to limit parking to one side of the street. Chairman Trauger brought out that the City spent money putting in the swales to control water flow, and he commented that they would not be very effective if cars are parked on them. Mr. Cannon agreed there were valid arguments on both sides. There was discussion. They talked about this in a Workshop Meeting, and Mrs. Buckle recalled she had asked where people would park on those narrow streets if they are not allowed to park on the swales. She was not surprised to see the City Engineer address it. Mr. Cannon advised that this recommendation was made in the original Comprehensive Plan, but it was never carried out. It is a continuing problem that is getting worse. Mrs. Huckle asked if Mr. Cannon meant it was recommended not to allow it in the original plan. Mr. Cannon replied that the original Comprehensive Plan recommended that swale parking be controlled and prohibited. - 6 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Mr. Ryder pointed out that some of the city's paved roadways are narrow and if they permit parking in that case, it obstructs traffic and makes for accidents. He thought, in cases like that, they should permit parking on swales. Traffic is supposed to move, not park. Mr. Wandelt called attention to cars that are not used any more and sit in the swales. Vice Chairman Winter moved to go with the City Engineer's recommendation, which allows parking in the swales. Mr. Pagliarulo seconded the motion, and the motion carried 6-1. Mr. Wandelt voted against the motion. (4) ~ommunity Development - Code Enforcement Area Mr. Cannon said items 4 and 5 are non-controversial and concern housing rehabilitation. Comment 4 recognizes the fact that Housing and Community Development has expanded to the Code enforcement area, which originally included only a small area north of Boynton Beach Boulevard. Community Development has expanded that area to include the area between the Boynton Canal and N. E. 22nd Avenue. That means that this area will qualify for Community Development block grant funds, which is important since it will affect the effectiveness of the Planning Department's recommendations for the north end of the City. Mr. Ryder moved to approve item 4, seconded by Mrs. Huckle. Motion carried 7-0. (5) Community Development Mr. Cannon said the City is currently drafting recommendations for a Countywide assistance program and were recommending that when this program is formalized, that the City review it, comment on the housing assistance plan, and include it as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Ryder, to approve item 5. Motion carried 7-0. LAND USE ELEMENT (6) Include acreage breakdown, by zoning district, of all land in the city Mr. Cannon referred the Members to the original set of comments the Members received in Attachment B and said the - 7 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Board wanted that type of analysis. The Members expressed their appreciation that this was included. Mr. Ryder moved to approve item 6, seconded by Mrs. Huckle. Motion carried 7-0. (7) Delete Recommendation that Day Care Centers be Allowed in Single Family zoning Districts Mr. Cannon stated that this was another comment by several of the Board Members. The State Legislature now allows Day Care Centers with up to five children in all zoning districts. The E&A Report recommended that the City allow day care centers as a conditional use in single family zoning districts. Mr. Ryder asked if they were recommending that they be in accordance with the State's regulations. Mr. Cannon advised that the State regulations will apply regard- less. Comment 7 would apply to day care centers with more than five children. Mrs. Huckle asked if the State law did not specify all single family districts, and wondered if there was any chance it could be regulated to one zoning category like R-lA. Mr. Cannon and Mr. Annunziato had not read the law, but Mr. Annunziato suspected it had nothing to do with zoning. He suspected it said no zoning could prohibit it because there was no standard zoning characterization in the State of Florida. One local government might call single family "R"; the next might call it "R-2", etc. Mr. Cannon informed Mr. Ryder that the city presently permits day care centers in R-2 and R-3. Now, Chairman Trauger said R-1AA could be included. Mr. deLong asked if the Board did not discuss at a Workshop the ability for them to put them as Commercial zoning too. Mr. Cannon answered that presently, day care centers are allowed as conditional uses in all commercial zoning districts. Mr. Wandelt questioned whether this would open up the door to allow more than five in residential areas. He knew the State law said up to five. Once you get above five, Vice Chairman winter said you go to a different zoning district. Mr. Ryder clarified that they would not be in a single family zoning district. Mr. Cannon said they would have to go for Conditional Use approval if they had more than five children. Mrs. Huckle said the article about the State law definitely said single family neighborhood. Mr. Annunziato said it - 8 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 would characteristically be the most restrictive zoning classification in urban areas. Mrs. Huckle wondered if they could rule it into one single family neighborhood like R-lA. Mr. Annunziato did not think so. Mr. Ryder moved that day care centers with up to five children be allowed in single family neighborhoods. Mr. Cannon emphasized that the issue was whether more than five children could be allowed. There was discussion. Mr. Annunziato advised that they just mimic the State law. Mr. deLong recommended that they keep the verbiage to delete day care centers in single family zoning districts except those that go up to five children. There was more discussion. Vice Mayor zimmerman advised that the State law says no more than five children during school hours and up to ten after school hours. Mrs. Huckle pointed out that it also says this is in addition to your own children. There was more discussion. Motion Vice Chairman winter moved to delete the recommendation that day care centers be allowed in single family zoning districts. Mr. Wandelt seconded the motion. vice Chairman winter commented that they would have no choice over it anyhow and explained his motion to the Members. Mr. Annunziato said the E&A Report did not speak to recommending for or against day care centers in single family districts. The effect of that is that the State law will supersede. There was discussion. Mr. Annunziato clarified for Mrs. Huckle that the original recommendation the Planning Department prepared recommended day care centers in single family areas. The Board wanted that recommendation deleted, which was the language shown in the report. By accepting that language, the Board was taking out the recommendation from the E&A Report° A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. (8) Area 3 - Central Business District Chairman Trauger commented that the Board never did receive comments from the Community Redevelopment Agency. At a Downtown Review Board meeting, Mr. Ryder was informed by Dianne Lawes, Executive Director, that she had not received - 9 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 anything from Hank Thompson, Chairman of the CRA, on this. Mayor Cassandra reported that yesterday, Mr. Thompson saw nothing wrong with the Comprehensive Plan, as presented, nor any detrimental effect to the CBD. vice Chairman Winter moved, seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo, to approve item 8. Motion carried 7-0. (9) Area 5 - Woolbright Road be Constructed Westward to Military Trail Vice Chairman winter moved, seconded by Mr. Wandelt, to approve item 9. Motion carried 7-0. (10) Areas 25 and 44 Mr. Cannon said this refers to the area covered by the Woolbright Planned Commercal District (PCD), which the Board already made a recommendation on. He thought the Board still needed to address whether they thought office/Commerical is the appropriate land use at that location and that the configuration of that commercial area should be as is shown on the land use plan, which is with the collector road cover- ing the minimum property area at that intersection. Mr. deLong asked if they were talking strictly about the PCD. Mr. Cannon replied that they were talking about the area covered by the PCD, which is presently zoned C-2 and R-lA. Mr. deLong asked if a portion of the front piece is also R-3. Mr. Annunziato answered that the PCD includes some R-3 zoned property, which is adjacent to the R-1 and C-2. He informed Mr. Ryder that two recommendations were made on applications. In both instances, there were recommendations to deny the Land Use Element and Amendment Request. The PCD was denied, and the railroad crossing was recommended for denial. Mr. Annunziato said the Board was still faced with the recommendation in the E&A Report for land use. So the Members would remember what the plan recommendation was, Mr. Annunziato showed a plan and said there was a recommendation that the land use in the yellow area be changed from Moderate to Low and that the brown area be changed from High to Medium Density. In the orange cross hatched area, it should be changed from various residential and local retail categories to office/Professional categories. The action they were going to take was not clear to Mr. Ryder, and he read Comment 10. Mrs. Huckle thought they - 10 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 should vote separately on the two parcels. At this point Mr. Annunziato thought the Board should consider whether or not to accept the recommendation made in the E&A Report for Areas 25 and 44. Mr. Ryder so moved. Mrs. Huckle wanted to vote on the areas separately. If they make a motion as Mr. Annunziato suggested and do not pass it, Mr. deLong said they would still be faced with what the city wants to do with the property in the future Compre- hensive Land Use Plan. He asked why they did not simply vote on whether they wanted to lower the density in that one Dortion from MOderate to Low and whether they want to keep the front C-2 or go with the C-1 recommendation for Office/ Professional. Mr. deLong stated that was the issue. Motion as to Area 25 Mr. deLong moved that the Land Use on Area 25 remain the same. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion. Mr. Ryder could not buy C-2 because a commercial area would mean more traffic than they would get than if they had office buildings. If you continue west on Woolbright, on the northerly side, he said they will get C-1. Mr. Ryder thought it would be proper for this to be C-l, and it would also fit in with what is across the road. Mr. deLong said it was contrary to the present market demand, and it had been proven. Mr. deLong said C-2 is the middle course of commercial, and he thought it was the negotiating factor. Something is going to be done with that land, and they had to try and please not just 200 very vocal people but the entire city. Mr. deLong continued that no developer in his right mind, with the current office space that the city has for a five to eight year absorption rate, will go in there and do any C-1 development on the property. They would be looking for some sort of retail where the market analysis consistently proved there was still a demand. Mr. deLong knew he would hear about vacant stores but said when they first start marketing these spaces, they are high rates. What happens is the more competition you have, the lower the price goes. Vacancies are being absorbed, and when the developers come down to the right rents, Mr. deLong said they rent them. Market analyses show there is still a strong market in Boynton Beach for retail. - 11- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Mr. Ryder recalled that one of the major considerations was increasing the traffic density. Mr. deLong responded that they went over that with the Engineers and had a whole load of Engineers talking to them about six laning the bridge. If you look at the property, Mr. deLong said it is a commer- cial piece if he ever saw one. He had no objection with the Lower Density to the rear and thought they could alleviate a lot of the traffic there by going from Moderate to Low Density. Mr. deLong emphasized that the piece up front has all of the ear marks of a commercial piece. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, they were supposed to encourage commercial development along major arterials. Here, they have 1-95 and Woolbright Avenue. Mr. Ryder argued that they had intersec- tions of arterials, not a lone arterial. Vice Chairman Winter asked if highly commercial development was not across the street. Mr. deLong said it was a different type of development altogether. A hotel complex and a Planned Industrial Development are going in. Mr. deLong emphasized that they do not let retail go into PIDs. Mrs. Huckle and Mr. Pagliarulo agreed with Mr. deLong. Mr. Pagliarulo understood 44,000 square feet of office space was just a little further west. Mr. Ryder referred to the north side of Boynton Beach Boule- vard, before you get to Congress Avenue, and said they had traffic studies and information relative to marketability. From that, he gleaned there were 20 shopping districts totaling 1,000,000 square feet. Most of them were west of 1-95, and currently, vacancies are about 30%. Mrs. Huckle understood there were even more vacancies in the offices. Mr. Ryder agreed but said to assume there is a glut in both. He asked that they look at the traffic situ- ation. The shopping center obviously engenders more traffic than an office building. Chairman Trauger referred to the press reports. There was argument. A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 5-2. Vice Chairman Winter and Mr. Ryder voted against the motion. Area 44 As it appears in the E&A Report, Mr. Annunziato said Area 44 was less than the area the Board was discussing, because Area 25 goes further north and is expanded south to the - 12 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 local retail. There was discussion. Where the local retail is now, the remainder of the property (as Mr. Annunziato understood the recommendation) is to go from Moderate and High to Low and Medium Density. Mro deLong moved that where the local retail is now, the remainder of the property is to go from Moderate and High to Low and Medium Density. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion. Mr. Pagliarulo asked how this would conflict with the pending lawsuit. Mr. Annunziato answered that it conflicts, and it does not conflict. Chairman Trauger commented that the Board could not take that into consideration, and Mr. Ryder remarked that the Board did not know what would happen with that. If they win their case, Mr. deLong said they will proceed to do what they wanted to do. If they lose, the City's future Comprehensive Land Use Plan will prevail. A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. (11) Area 30 Mr. Cannon informed the Members this is the commercial strip along the east side of U. S. 1 between the CBD zoning district and the Boynton Canal. There was some discussion as to whether the C-2 or C-3 was the appropriate zoning district. Mr. Annunziato pointed it out on the overlay. Mr. Cannon continued that the City Staff recommended in the E&A Report that this area be down zoned to C-3. The Board had some concern about the lot sizes in that area, as to whether it was conducive to a C-3 zoning district. Mr. Annunziato pointed to the Boynton Canal and U. S. 1. and said the redevelopment plan that was prepared by Hank Skokowski, Urban Design Studio, suggested that the zoning be changed from C-3 to C-2 to accommodate smaller lots and the homes to the east. After a re-examination, Mr. Annunziato said the Staff's recommendation was that C-2 was consistent with the plan. Mrs. Huckle moved for approval of C-2 zoning in Area 30. Mr. Wandelt seconded the motion. Mr. Cannon referred the Members to the Planning Department's report (Attachment C) and said the Planning Department had made a recommendation for minor adjustments to those bound- aries. Mr. Annunziato said they found there were certain properties which, through ownership, had been split by the - 13 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 zoning line, and they were recommending that the zoning line reflect the property ownership. Mr. Cannon clarified that there are three parcels which lie outside of the C-4 zoning district that they recommend be included in that commercial zoning district. Mr. Annunziato confirmed Mr. deLong's statement that they were changing their original recommendation. (1) They were now agreeing with the BOard that C-2 is appropriate, and (2) based on their analysis of land ownership, they found that the exist- ing zoning line was splitting properties of record. They recommended that the commercial zones spill into the parcels which were not zoned consistent with the parent tract so that someone could develop it under one of the zoning categories. Mr. deLong told the Board he went back through that area pretty thoroughly and looked at the homes to the east. He agreed wholeheartedly that it should be downgraded from C-4 but felt they would really impune the value of many property owners in that area by coming down from a C-4 to a C-2. While he was in favor of the C-2 to begin with, Mr. deLong now felt the change was too severe, and that property owners in the area would take a real "pasting" by going from C-4 to C-2. He felt the original recommendation of the Planning Department had merit, and he was in favor of downgrading it from C-4 to C-3, but not C-2. Mrs. Huckle asked about expanding the uses to C-2. Mr. deLong pointed out that they had not done that, as of now, and they do not know what the expansion is, but he would say it would have decided merit. If the retail uses in the C-2 zoning district are expanded, Mr. Cannon thought just about any retail store, such as flower shops and small furniture stores, would be allowed in the zoning district. Right now, there is a very limited number of retail uses allowed in the C-2 zoning district. Mr. Cannon thought if they allow the type of retail uses you get in a typically strip shopping center, he did not think it would be any detriment to the surrounding property. Mr. deLong thought it would eliminate some of the things they would like to eliminate. Mr. deLong asked if the motion could be with the proviso that the C-2 zoning be expanded. This was agreeable to Mrs. Huckle and Mr. Wandelt. Mrs. Huckle took it for granted because they had talked about it. Chairman Trauger said - 14 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 they would change the types of uses included in C-2. Mrs. Huckle asked if it would have to go to the Council. Mr. Annunziato replied that they were talking about a year after the adoption of the E&A Report. They will have to amend all of~ the regulations consistent with the E&A Report. In the year following the adoption, they will see all kinds of things coming through the Local Planning Agency and Land Development and Regulation Commission (or whatever they will call it). Mr. de:Long wanted the motion to be amended to approve C-2 zoning in Area 30, subject to the expansion of the uses in C-2. Mrs. Huckle and Mr. Wandelt agreed to this. A vote was taken on the motion and carried 7-0. (12) Area 31 Mr. Cannon said this is property to the north of the Four Seasons Adult Congregate Living Facility (ACLF) on N. E. 4th Street. The Planning Department recommended that undeveloped property be down zoned from R-3 and the High Density land use category and that it be placed in a Low Density land use category and be most likely zoned R-lA. When he looks at the trailer park and multi-family residences now there, Mr. deLong did not believe it was an R-1 piece of property. He did not believe they would sell single family residences surrounded by what is there now (trailer park, boats, the Four Seasons condos, and the ACLF). Going north of 17th, Mr. Ryder said there are single family homes. Mrs. Huckle was hoping the owner of the property would appear at one of the hearings because he said he was anxious to sell it. She was also surprised if he has wanted to sell it for so long that he has not come in to ask for a rezoning. After she looked at the property a second time, she could see that it could almost go either way, and she explained. If you had R-3, Mrs. Huckle said you could always use an R-lA zoning in there if you wanted a use in it. If they put it R-lA, then they could not go to R-3. It seemed to Mrs. Huckle it would be up to the owner to indicate what he would like to have it zoned as. Mr. Annunziato said there are two properties here, a piece along 4th Street and another piece. Unless they are joined, you can only get to the one piece by going through a single - 15 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 family neighborhood. That problem would be diminished if the two parcels were joined and if 4th Street was dedicated, which Mr. Annunziato was sure it would be as part of the land development process. Then there would be access from the east as well. There was discussion. If they did go from R-3 to R-i, Mr. deLong pointed out that they would preclude someone from putting another ACLF there, and he explained. Mr. Ryder moved to continue the present zoning of R-3 for Area 31. Mr. deLong seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. (13) Area 36. Mr. Cannon said this parcel is covered by the Cross. Creek Planned Commercial Development (PCD). It is on the north side of Boynton Beach Boulevard, just to the east of Congress Avenue. The City Council already voted to approve this piece. Mrs. Huckle commented that it was past history but thought they should dispose of it. Mr. Ryder moved to delete item 13, seconded by Mr. deLong. Motion carried 7-0. (14) Area 49. Mr. Cannon said this area includes the High Ridge Planned Industrial Development and the unincorporated parcel that lies immediately to the west. It is a square shaped out parcel. Mr. deLong commented that Max Schorr owns 1/2 of it, and he questioned why they were voting, because it was already passed. Mr. Cannon agreed that the Board had already recommended that the parcel owned by Mr. Schorr be changed to an industrial category. Mr. Annunziato said the Board should now move to accept the recommendation. Mrs. Huckle asked why they were not deleting this item. Mr. Cannon explained that there is a parcel. Mrs. Huckle asked how much was left over, and Mr. Cannon answered, "Half". Mr. deLong moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning Department, seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo. Motion carried 7-0. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT (15) Mr. Cannon reminded the Members that one of the Board Members had recommended that the platform at the end of Casa - 16 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Loma Boulevard be added under the list of "Special Facilities". Mrs. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Wandelt, to approve the recommendation. Motion. carried J-0. (16) (a) Mr. Cannon read the first change recommended by the Recreation and Parks Director. If they included all of the private recreation areas in the condominiums in the plan, Chairman Trauger thought they should have enough all over the City. He thought they should take each change separately when they voted. Mr. Pagliarulo moved to accept 16 (a), seconded by Mrs. Huckle. Motion carried 7-0. (b) Originally, the Planning Department recommended that the park dedication requirement be increased from approximately six acres per 1,000 persons to ten acres per 1,000 persons. The Recreation Director advised the Planning Department that the County's provision of parks and acreage takes care of approximately half of that 10 acres per 1,000. Mrs. Huckle moved to accept six acres per 1,000 persons, seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo. Mr. Cannon informed Mr. deLong there are approximately 9,000 to 10,000 acres in the city. If we have 9,500 acres, he said they were looking at about 11.3% of the total acreage for parks. On the current basis of 6 per 1,000, the City is saying it wants 280 acres. Mr. Cannon said they estimate that the City will ultimately have approximately 80,000 persons. Mr. deLong remarked that would be 480 at build out in the year 2010. At build out, it would represent about 5% of the City's total acreage. Mr. deLong asked Mr. Annunziato if he was comfortable, in a City like Boynton Beach, with presently having 280 acres for parks. If it meets the standards which were set, Mr. Annunziato thought they were comfortable.~ Mr. Cannon thought the problem the City had was that there are large, developed areas for which no park land was ever created. If there is a deficit, that is where it came from. Mr. deLong was concerned with economic feasibility because the Comprehensive Plan has to be economically feasible, and that is State mandated, and he elaborated. Mr. Cannon said the City gets land free through subdivision regulations. A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. - 17 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 (c) Mr. Cannon said these were simply some corrections that the Recreation and Parks Director found that needed to be made. Mrs. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Ryder to accept the ~corrections. Motion carried 7-0. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION RELIEF (17) Mr. Cannon said the Board's recommendation had already been made. Chairman Trauger asked if it included the Chamber of Commerce's recommendation. Mr. Ryder read from page 179 of the E&A Report, "Construct a public collector east from S. W. 8th Street to serve the industrial property lying between the S.A.L. Railway and Interstate 95" and noted it did not say where. He commented that the location has been a question, and he did not see a problem with the statement. One issue that Mr. Annunziato felt should be fully understood was that there are platted rights-of-way which run east/west to all the Lake Boynton Estates plats. If, in the future, there is going to be a collector somewhere, it would be advisable for it to be in a collector form, which would functionally be the kind of road the Board would want. The question of alignment has been on Mr. Ryder's mind. Originally, they showed it going right across, from east to west, at around llth Avenue. Then there are other concep- tions. His suggestion at that time was that when they cross the railroad at llth Avenue, they should immediately go south as far as they can and then over to 8th Street. That way they would direct the truck traffic to Woolbright and not up north because if you go further north, you would make it easy for traffic to go north, adjacent to Leisureville and Lake Boynton Estates. Mr. deLong recalled that was the Planner's recommendation, and the objections to it were that they were splitting the church property, and, by that road, it was forever separating and abutting to the residential. When they defeated that railroad crossing 7-0, Mr. deLong gathered it was because the way the road was proposed. If it had not been proposed straight through and had not come through that front property to split the valuable property the church had up front, the Board might have approved the railroad property at that time. - 18 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Mr. Annunziato advised that it is split now. Mr. deLong brought out that it is not split in the fashion that was planned, with the "S" coming down, as Mr. Annunziato and Mr. Ryder described it. Chairman Trauger asked what happened when it came straight down and paralleled with Woolbright. Mr. Ryder said they never got anywhere with what he had suggested. By doing that, he said you are routing access, ingress and egress by way of WoOlbright, which he thought was the way to go. Mrs. Huckle did not see anything wrong with what it said at the top of page 179, as it was basically leaving it open with regard to the verbiage. She also read what Mr. Ryder had read from page 179. Mr. Ryder agreed with Chairman Trauger that the Board should approve the recommendation. Mrs. Huckle wanted to see if it deviated from the original language. After researching, she thought the Board should move to accept the original language. Mr. Annunziato recommended they leave the recommendation. Then what is in the text would prevail. Mr. Pagliarulo asked if they were tying it down. Mr. Ryder replied that they were not tying it down but were saying they were going east, across the railroad. Mr. Pagliarulo questioned whether they were tying it into S. W. 8th Street. Mr. Wandelt informed him that was the only outlet. There was discussion. Mr. Annunziato explained that 8th Street was the first street you would come to, west of 1-95, so if you have an east/west road and you want to get out to Woolbright~ you have to go through 8th. The only thing Mrs. Huckle could see that this motion would preclude would be to leave the existing indus- trial access totally out of the question (Ocean Avenue). She said Mr. Pagliarulo asked if they were tying it down, and they were, if they were recommending this language be accepted. Mr. Ryder moved to delete comment 17 and to leave para- graph 3.5.8.12.5 from page 179 of the E&A Report. Mrs. Huckle pointed out that they would be leaving the original text, and seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. (18) Mr. Cannon told the Members this was a modification to the recommendation the Planning Department made for traffic impact. They had stated that level of service D was accept- able, and it should read that "Level Service D is also acceptable during the peak hours". Mr. Cannon said this is consistent with Palm Beach County. - 19 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Mr. deLong moved to approve item 18, seconded by Mr. Ryder. Motion carried 7-0. (19) Old Boynton Road. Mrs. Huckle moved to approve the recommendation of adding Old Boynton Road as a four lane road on the year 2000. Mr. Ryder seconded the motion, and the motion carried 4-0. SANITARY SEWER, SOLID WASTE, DRAINAGE, AND POTABLE WATER ELEMENT (20) Mr. Cannon said a list of local street improvements was provided, which he thought they said will be funded by the City. Mr. Annunziato recommended that the word "will" be changed to "may be funded by the City" because' in some cases, the adjacent property owner may construct that. Mr. deLong moved for the approval of item 20, seconded by Mr. Wandelt. Motion carried 7-0. (21) Mr. Cannon informed the Members this was a correction to the criteria for storm water retention. Mrs. Huckle moved to approve item 21, seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo. Motion carried 7-0. (22) Mr. Cannon stated this was merely a refinement of the date the Lantana landfill will close. It was also a state- ment that the Delray Beach transfer station will have to be used until the Lantana Road transfer station is completed. Mrs. Huckle moved to approve item 22, seconded by Mr. Wandelt. Motion carried 7-0. (23) Mr. Cannon said Perry Cessna, Utilities Director, recommended three changes. (a) was that the current sewage flow should be corrected from 6.11 million gallons per day to 5.11 million gallons per day. Mrs. H~uckle moved to approve (23) (a), seconded by Mr. Wandelt. Motion carried 7-0. (b) was a summary of the memo from the Utilities Director in which he stated that the city will most likely need to tap into the upper Florida aquifer, should proceed with a program to drill some test wells, and make some esti- - 20 - -INUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 mates as to the availability and costs of getting water from there. In Mr. deLong's opinion, the Utilities Department is one of the most outstanding departments in the entire area of Southern Florida. The Members agreed. Mr. Ryder commented that Perry Cessna has been a very valuable asset. Mrs. Huckle moved to approve (23) (b), seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo. Motion carried 7-0. (c) Mr. Ryder moved to approve (23) (c), seconded by Mrs. Huckle. Motion carried 7-0. INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT (24) In the area of the southeast corner of the City, east of U. S. 1, Mr. Cannon reported that some desire was expressed to City Manager Cheney by the residents of that area that they would like to annex into the city of Boynton Beach. The City originally excluded that area, but it seems reason- able that if a referendum is held and a majority of the residents desire it, it would be suitable for annexation. Chairman Trauger asked what was there now. Mr. deLong replied, "The Tradewinds." Mrs. Huckle thought it was interesting to note City Manager Cheney said it would probably cost more for the City to have them annexed than not because the services supplied and the taxes received would probably not weigh out in the City's favor. At the same time, she thought it was a suitable spot for annexation. There was discussion. Mr. Ryder moved, seconded by Mr. deLong, to approve item 24. Motion carried 7-0. ENERGY ELEMENT (25) At one of the Workshop meetings, Mr. Cannon said the Energy Coordinator expressed the desire that he would like to see the Energy Element Evaluation and Appraisal Report, as he originally drafted it, included in the E&A Report. Mr. Cannon said there was a question as to whether the Board would want it attached as an Addendum. Mr. Ryder said he would go along with the recommendation of the Planning Department that it should be referenced in the bibliography. Mr. deLong commented that it is a highly technical piece of paper. For that reason, he would rather - 21- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 see it attached as an addendum rather than part of the E&A Report. Mr. Annunziato advised it is background information and data. Mr. deLong moved to attach the Energy Element Evaluation and Appraisal Report, as originally prepared by the Energy Coordinator, be included as an addendum to the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Mr. Pagliarulo seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. CAPITAL NEEDS LIST (26) The Utilities Director recommended that a 5 million gallon water storage tank be included in the list as opposed to a 2 million gallon water storage tank. Mrs. Huckle moved to approve item 26, seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo. Motion carried 7-0. (27) Mr. Cannon said this reflects earlier comments by the Utilities Director. It states that the City will have to pay for test wells and raw Water wells needed to be drilled into the Florida Aquifer. Mr. Cannon told Mr. Ryder it would include reverse osmosis. Mrs. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Wandelt, to approve item 27. Motion carried 7-0. THE BOARD TOOK A RECESS AT 9:05 P. M. The meeting resumed at 9:10 P. M. Chairman Trauger recognized the presence of Councilman Ezell Hester and City Manager Cheney, who just joined the meeting. Mr. Annunziato noted 9s 26 and 27 were duplicated but advised the Board to use those numbers anyway. He told the Members these comments were made at the public hearing on June 16, 1986. (26) Historic Preservation Mr. deLong moved that item 26 be approved, seconded by Mr. Wandelt. Mrs. Huckle was not sure she understood part of this, and she read the comment and asked what they were getting into. Mr. Cannon thought a developer would be able to exclude part or all of the building from a lot coverage calculation. To a certain extent, he would be able to exclude it from a 22- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 requirement for a parking setback. It is a general policy that would have to be expanded when an actual Ordinance is adoPted. Mr. deLong explained that the Community Redevelopment Agency is endeavoring to establish a model block area. In order to do that, they cannot be guided by the same zoning stipula- tions that the City has outside of the CBD. A portion of item 27 relates to item 26. If they looked at historic areas like Williamsburg, Virginia, and St. Augustine, Mr. deLong said they would find they have garage apartments, which add to the quaintness of the area, and he elaborated. Mr. deLong stated that what they were saying was the city has to be more liberal in its use of parking, zero lot lines, and intensity of the use of the building to make it pay for them if they are going to put that kind of money into making an area look like areas such as St. Augustine, etc. Mrs. Huckle again questioned what they would be approving. Mr. Ryder guessed it was intended to be general. Mr. deLong said it would give the CRA the authority to do what they want. Mr. Pagliarulo asked about the areas outside of the downtown. Mr. Cannon thought it was intended as a general policy. Mr. Ryder advised that it was not limited to the downtown. A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. (27) Modifications to Residential Zoning District Regulations Mr. Cannon said it was the position of this particular speaker that the City could encourage the purchase and up- grading older homes by allowing garage apartments, apartments for relatives, and relaxing setbacks. He thought the first recommendation for setbacks for attached garages was going to be included in a revised Ordinance that the Planning Department is currently completing. Mr. Cannon said the city already allows people related by blood or marriage to reside in the dwelling, as well as one unrelated person. The Planning Department did not see that allowing accessory dwelling units, as they have in Lake Worth, was desirable for Boynton Beach. Mr. Cannon thought it would increase the number of renters, as well as parking overspills. Chairman Trauger thought it would eventually relieve urban renewal. Mr. Cannon said the Board could go with the 23- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Planning Department's recommendation or the recommendation of the speaker. Mr. Pagliarulo moved to accept the Planning Department's recommendation, seconded by Mr. Ryder. Motion carried 7-0. (28) Wilderness Island A Member of the Wilderness Island Coalition recommended that the city, through the general language of the Comprehensive Plan, support the establishment of a Wilderness Island in Palm Beach County. Mr. Cannon said the Coalition is identify- ing undeveloped parcels within the unincorporated area and within the cities of Palm Beach County and ascertaining whether particular parcels, because of their vegetation and habitat, are unique and should be preserved. The City Staff had a conference with the Coalition, and the City Staff felt the concept would be acceptable if it would not place any burden on the City to actually purchase parcels in the city or to institute any kind of transfer of develop- ment rights program within the City. If it is legally possible to institute a transfer of development rights, Mr. Cannon thought a joint Ordinance between the city and Palm Beach County would be acceptable, where the City would transfer development rights out of the City to the unin- corporated areas in return for preservation of certain parcels in the City. Mr. Cannon told Chairman Trauger he thought this was general enough that it would not bind the city. Mr. deLong recalled Mr. Cannon said if it were feasible because, at the time, he had the apprehension of being forced to buy something that the City was not in the position to buy. He thought it was fine with the verbiage that Mr. Cannon just recanted. Mr. deLong moved to approve item 28, together with the incorporation of what Mr. Cannon just recanted. Mr. Ryder seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. (29) Screening of Industrial Developments Mr. Cannon said this was a recommendation that involved subdivisions. The speaker found fault in the site plans in areas that were already platted. Prior to development of industrial, the developer would have to provide a vegetative screen of a certain density, in addition to the wall. It has already been required, and Mr. Cannon gave Boynton - 24- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Commerce Center as an example and elaborated. He thought this procedure was suggesting that some level of screening be required between all industrial developments and resi- dential developments. Mr. Ryder moved to approve item 29, seconded by Mr. deLong. Motion carried 7-0. (30) Area 3. This suggested that the boundaries of the CBD zoning District be expanded westward approximately one block to N. E. and S. E. 3rd Street. Mr. Cannon reported that the Planning Department recommended that this suggestion be forwarded to the CRA for action. Mr. Ryder thought that was the proper approach, and he informed Chairman Trauger and Mrs. Huckle that they want to expand the Central Business District. There was discussion. Mr. Annunziato thought they should say the recommendation to expand the CBD should be forwarded to the CRA prior to the Council's action. Mr. Ryder so moved. The motion died for lack of a second. If the CRA wanted to increase the CBD from a two mile radius to a four mile radius, Mr. deLong pointed out that the P&Z Board would have nothing to say about the extent of what should be CBD. Mr. Annunziato advised that the P&Z Board would always have to react to a land development regulation change. Mr. deLong asked if it was correct to say the CRA would initiate it and come to the P&Z Board. Mr. Annunziato informed him that the Council cannot adopt any land develop- ment regulation, whether it is a change in zoning, land use, subdivision regulations, or zoning Codes, without first having a recommendation from the P&Z determining the consistency with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Following up on what Mrs. Huckle said, Mr. Annunziato did not see why they could not just delete 930 because it could be initiated as long as the land use is consistent. Mrs. Huckle moved to delete item 30. Mr. deLong seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. (31) Area 19 Mr. Cannon told the Members this area is the frontage on Woolbright Road, just east of 1-95, and was addressed in the original Comprehensive Plan. From time to time, he said the Planning Department gets requests or inquiries from the - 25- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 owners of the houses along Woolbright Road and vicinity as to whether that property can be rezoned to Commercial. Mr. Cannon thought they had C-1 in mind. Mrs. Huckle recalled that Former Mayor Harvey Oyer made the comment, and he lives there. Mr. Cannon said the Planning Department had recommended against rezoning to C-1 and recommended that it remain in the Residential zoning category. If the time ever comes when it is rezoned, he said it should be limited to one story offices, and a buffer wall should be provided along the rear. Mrs. Huckle agreed with that. There was discussion about prior applications. Mrs. Huckle moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning Department that the property remain Residential and if it reverts to C-l, it should be limited to one story offices, and a buffer wall should be provided along the rear. Mr. Ryder seconded the motion. Mr. Annunziato informed Mr. Pagliarulo that they were talking about ten lots. He added that there are so many problems associated with that. The fact that there are so many lots is probably the biggest problem. They could not deny one or two points of access to each lot, if the properties were developed. This will result in congestion on Woolbright Road and difficulty in turning. The lots are not that big. Every time they have gone through this public hearing before, where public notices have been advertised, Mr. Annunziato said there has been a tremendous outcry from single family property owners in the area presenting a desire to not have the land use and zoning changed because they feel it will be detrimental to the single family homes. There was some discussion. Chairman Trauger asked what will happen to the little house on the very corner where 1-95 curves off to the right. If that was commercial, he did not see how anyone would ever get out of there. Mr. Ryder advised that it does not front on Woolbright. Mrs. Huckle informed everyone it is part of Forest Park and is a pocket that will have to stay there. She said there are a lot of vacant lots but not too many houses on Woolbright Road, which is why there is such a push to do something with it. Mr. deLong inquired whether the long piece of vacant property behind the fence would be developed single family. Mr. - 26 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Annunziato informed him that it has no access rights onto Woolbright Road. Mr. deLong pointed out that it does from 3rd Street. Mr. Annunziato thought it was clear what Mr. deLong was saying and thought that was the way the property owners feel about it. If it was not C-i, Mr. deLong asked what else they could do with it. Sooner or later, Mr. Annunziato said someone might put a house on it. He alluded to very substantial homes going up right on the highway on Hillsboro Boulevard. Properties are there which he never thought would develop. Mrs. Huckle reminded everyone that they took so much of everyone's front yards off on Woolbright, and they cannot open their windows because they are just "eating dust" all of the time. Mr. Annunziato told Mr. deLong it is zoned R-1A~ and was platted that way 25 years ago. A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 6-1. Mr. deLong voted against the motion. (32) Area '23 Mr. Cannon referred the Members to the map after page 2, marked "Area D", and said the platted lots which front on Boynton Beach Boulevard and Seacrest Boulevard are already zoned C-2. Area A is part of the Church property that is already zoned Commercial, and those lots front on Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Cannon said Area B is a small triangu- lar parcel just to the north of that C-2 zoning district and is occupied by the Church's paved parking lot. In the E&A Report, the Planning Department recommended that area be re- zoned C-2 so that the entire Church parcel, including the parking lot, could be converted to some commercial use. Mr. Cannon informed the Members that the Baptist Church also owns Area 3 on the north side of N. W. 3rd Court. At the public hearing, they requested that property also be included in the rezoning to a C-2 zoning district. The owners of the lots covered by Area B also requested that their properties be rezoned to the Commercial zoning districts. The Planning Department is recommending that Area B be rezoned to C-2 regardless. Their recommendations for Areas C and D is that these properties only be zoned to Commercial if the owners provide a unity of title running between the property occupied by the Church in Area C and the property occupied by the Church in Area D. - 27 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 When he says Commercial, Mr. Ryder asked if Mr. Cannon meant C-2 as well for C and D. Mr. Cannon answered that they had recommended that Areas C and D be limited to C-1 zoning. Chairman Trauger commented that would provide for offices. With the City Council spending money to make a beautiful City Hall, Chairman Trauger thought it would look nice if someone put up a nice office building on the church property and an office building where the post office is. Mr, Cannon agreed and said the Planning~Department is suggesting it would be proper to develop most of these blocks for some office/commer- cial use. Mr. Cannon pointed out that the recommendation for Area C should be construed to include Lot 135, which the Church presently does not own. If that entire triangular piece of property could be provided with a unity of title connecting it with Areas A and B, then the western part of that block should be rezoned to a C-1 category. Mr. Annunziato confirmed Mrsa Huckle's statement that they were also recommending abandonment as part of the unity of title. Other than the unity of title, she asked if they were recommending Area C be C-il. Mr. Ryder replied that Areas C and D were recommended to be C-1. Area B is to be C-2. Mr. Annunziato advised ~hat Area C is recommended for C-1 only if it can be connected to the parent tract. Unless Areas ~C and D can be connected to the parent tract and all of the properties brought in, they should remain as they are currently developed in R-lA (single family homes). He added that they are all occupied. If it cannot be put together, Mr. Annunziato said piecemeal development can occur. If someone can put it together, it will make for a logical development. If they do put it together, Mrs. Huckle said they will be nailed down to Areas C and D being C-1 zoning only, Mr. Wandelt noted they would be attached to C-2s. Mr. deLong commented that the C-2 will front on North Seacrest Boulevard and West Boynton Beach Boulevard. Mr. Wandelt had a problem with it and questioned why they broke the area up. Mr. deLong answered that probably, they do not want that much retail there. Being in close proximity to the new City Hall complex, the City might get some ancillary office buildings there that might be adjunct to services in City Hall, like Attorneys, etc. Mr. Wandelt was suggesting that the whole thing should be C-1. Mr. deLong asked if he meant rezoning the present C-2. Mr. Wandelt answered, "If it can all be put together." - 28- M~NUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 With regard to Area 32, Mr. Ryder moved to rezone Area B to C-2. Providing a unity of title is received, he moved that Areas C and D be rezoned to C-1 Office and Professional Commercial. Mr. deLong seconded the motion. Mr. Wandelt noted Area A is the three lots to the west and is zoned C-2 now. Mrs. Huckle asked if they had to include the abandonment of 3rd Court in the motion. Mr. Pagliarulo thought they needed to include Lot 135. Mr. deLong assumed Area C should include Lot 135. Mr. Ryder amended his motion to read that Area B should be rezoned to C-2. Providing a unity of title is received and N. Wo 3rd Court is abandoned, Areas C and D should be rezoned to C-1 Office and Professional Commercial. Mr. deLong agreed with the amendment. A vote was taken on the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. (33) Areas 38 and 39 (Page 120 of the E&A Report) The Planning Department recommended that the vacant four acre parcel on the northeast corner of Golf Road and Congress Avenue be changed to a High Density land use classification and an R-3 zoning district. They also made a similar recommendation for the southeast corner. The basis for this recommendation is that multiple family zoning has already been established to the north with Cedarwood Villas and also to the south in Golfview Harbour Estates. Mr. Cannon said they did not see any particular problem with land use conflict, if this area were to be developed with low rise multiple family one and two story dwellings, and made that explicit recommendation. Chairman Trauger asked if they could limit it to one and two stories. If they make the finding that the height limitation is necessary to prevent a land use conflict with surrounding properties, Mr. Cannon thought they could make that limitation. Mr, Annunziato added that even though the property in the north-west corner is in a Low Density residential category, it will be acceptable for High Density residential develop- ment (Savannah Place portion of the Quail West PUD) because of the large lakes. Chairman Trauger asked if they will be two stories. Mr. Annunziato thought the plan they approved was for three stories. Mr. Annunziato informed Mr. Ryder that the present zoning is R-1AA. Mrs. Huckle remarked that it is coming in as a PUD. 29- ~INUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Mr. Annunziato clarified that it is a parcel within a PUD. Mr. deLong recalled there was resistance to this. He prefaced his remarks by going back to Woolbright Road, near Leisureville, and said he would argue that piece is largely Commercial. Woolbright Road is too far gone now and has to be developed. At this corner, Mr. deLong said they do not have the same situation. By putting R-3 zoning in there, they will create another intersection where they will exacerbate that corner. Mr. deLong believed it should stay R-1AA, as most of the residents do, especially with what is happening on the other side of Leisureville. Mr. deLong emphasized that there is no sense exacerbating the situation by doing this to Golf Road and Congress Avenue. There is no Commercial there. Mr. deLong pointed out that they will now begin to impact S. W. 23rd, and it will be the same thing that they have on Woolbright Road. He elaborated and then added that he would be against High Density here. Mr. Ryder agreed with Mr. deLong because Silverlake is diagonally across; Quail Lake, which is also Residential, is coming, and the southerly side is also zoned Residential. Injecting Commerical on one corner, where the other three corners apparently are going to be Residential would be a mistake. Mrs. Buckle pointed out that they were not talking about Commercial but were talking about increasing Density. Mr. Annunziato did not disagree with what Mr. deLong and Mr. Ryder were saying but said the tracts will become more and more isolated as the properties around them develop out. They will begin to stand out substantially. When Congress Avenue is four and then six laned, and the intersection of Golf Road is extended to accommodate lefts, rights, and throughs, the problems will occur. They will then be in a situation where it will become more difficult to sustain a single family recommendtion. At that point, Mr. Annunziato thought they could be subject to a very serious challenge in the ability to defend that these are single family areas. If someone comes in tomorrow to develop the tracts in single family form, Mr. Annunziato said no one would disagree with Mr. deLong and Mr. Ryder, but Congress Avenue will be four laned and potentially six laned a year from now. That will include the east/west intersection and the east/west portions on Golf Road. The longer that property is undeveloped, traffic increases, and trips per day go to 30,000 trips per day on Congress Avenue and 10,000 trips per day on Golf - 30 - "INUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Road~ Mr. Annunziato said it will become a substantial problem. Those are the fears of the Planning Department. Mr. Annunziato said the Planning Department thinks it can defend a multi-family option easier than a single family option. Chairman Trauger argued that they have defended the single family successfully for the last ten or twelve years, about six or seven times. Mrs. Huckle asked if Mr. Annunziato was saying, "defending it against possible Commercial?" Mr. Ryder brOught up the fact that High Density increases traffic more than R-1AA. Mr. Annunziato agreed that it produces more traffic, but the roadway capacity would probably be there because they would have the capacity to go to six lanes on Congress Avenue. Four years from now, when everything is developing, and these tracts of land are still vacant and the trips per day are approaching 30,000 trips per day with a six lane highway and 10,000 trips per day on a two lane highway with a large intersection, it will be very difficult to defend the single family option. Mr. Annunziato explained. Mr. Ryder recalled applications in the past to go Commercial. Even if they go High Density here, he said you might expect they would feel they could go Commercial as well, so they might be establishing a pattern. Mr. Annunziato clarified that the recommendation exists for both the north and the south. Mr. deLong advised Mr. Annunziato was talking about both parcels. Mr. Ryder wanted to see both of them remain R-1AA. Mr. Wandelt said they knew Norman Michael would come back again. Mrs. Huckle was trying to envision single family homes on that parcel. With Congress Avenue widening and more traffic, Mr. Wandelt did not think they would have a chance. Mrs. Huckle called attention to the high rise apartments across the canal and said she could see the logic of Mr. Annunziato's proposal. She knew the neighbors were dead set against it but pointed out that they have buffers. Mr. Annunziato was recommending that only the western portion of the parcel go for high rise. The remaining, where it starts single family, should go to R-1AA. Mrs. Huckle thought it was a sound recommendation. Mr. deLong recalled a developer just built single family units near Leisureville on the north perimeter of the piece they were talking about. Mr. Annunziato informed him they are platted lots in Leisureville. What is happening is that - 31- -NUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 those tracts of land are being isolated. As all of the private properties around them plat out and develop, Mr. Annunziato said they will be more isolated and will be vacant properties at collectors and arterials. Obviously, the City does not want to go Commercial. Mr. Ryder moved that the High Density recommendation for Areas 38 and 39) be DENIED. Mr. Pagliarulo seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. (34) Areas 25 and 44 (Lake Boynton Estates) Mr. Cannon thought the Board had already disposed of this. Mr. deLong moved to delete item 34, seconded by Vice Chairman Winter. Motion carried 7-0. (35) Area 29 (Land Use Element) Mr. Cannon believed the parcel referred to was the area occupied by Shooters Restaurant. One of the owners of Shooters appeared at the hearing and requested that the C-4 zoning remain. There was discussion about page 4, which Mr. Cannon explained was a continuation of item 34. Area 37 on Dage 4 was the beginning of a sentence pertaining to item 34. Mr. Cannon continued that the owners of Shooters requested that the two lots north of Waters Edge, currently zoned R-3, be zoned C-3. Mr. Annunziato informed Mr. deLong that the frontage on the two lots is already C-3. The Planning Department had five or six letters from residents of Waters Edge recommending against Shooters' request and suggesting that perhaps all of this should be Residential. Mr. deLong questioned whether they would build in future complainants, if they put Residential there, with the noise problems the City now has. He explained and added that he was not so sure it was the way to go. Mr. deLong commented that maybe it should have a marina classification. He did not think they should do to the people of Waters Edge what is happening on Las Palmas. Under Shooters' recommendation, under the no change recommen- dation, or under the Waters Edge recommendation, Mr. Annunziato commented that the change is the same. Shooters is adjacent to existing residential property or property which is zoned Residential but which could be developed for Commercial property adjacent to already developed property on the south, if Shooters recommendation is accepted. - 32- ~INUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 If Mr. Annunziato was moving into Waters Edge, Mr. deLong asked whether he would not prefer to have C2i or C-2 where they could have a buffer like offices or a hotel or motel there than if they put people in the middle there, on top of the noise. If he lived in Waters Edge, Mr. deLong thought he would want that bit of buffer other than more complainers joining him about the noise that is going on. He went into more detail. If he lived in Water Edge, Vice Chairman Winter thought he would rather have apartments. There was discussion. Mr. Annunziato said there was a recommendation in the E&A Report that changed a C-4 lot to C-3. Mr. deLong felt certainly they could change C-4 to C-2 and expand it further south. Mr. Cannon thought Shooters would be there for a long time. Even if it is changed to C-2, which does not allow bars, it will stay a bar as long as it is still there. Mr. deLong thought there was one lot where the front was zoned C-4. Mr. Annunziato informed him Shooters parking lot is the lot that is zoned C-4. If they take the C-4 lot and make it C-2, he told Mr. deLong they would interfere with Shooters planned parking lot expansion because you cannot build a parking lot on C-2 for a C-3 use. Mr. deLong asked if they could do it on a C-3 lot. Mr. Annunziato answered affirmatively and said that the Planning Department's recommendation was that the C-4 lot be changed to C-3, and the residential lots should stay the same. Shooters suggested to the Board that the two R-3 lots also become C-3. The people at Waters Edge asked why it was not all residential. Mr. Annunziato told Mrs. Huckle there are three lots between Waters Edge and Shooters. The lot closest to Shooters, which has been cleared for parking, is the one the Planning Department is recommending to be zoned from C-4 to C-3. There are two more lots that run from the Intracoastal to U. S. 1. The eastern 2/3rds of each of those two lots are in the High Density Residential category. The western 1/3 is in the C-3 pattern. Mr. Pagliarulo asked if those parcels were owned by Shooters. Mr. Annunziato replied that they indicated that they bought all of the property. Mr. Annunziato advised Mr. deLong that the Planning Depart- ment did not recommend that the two lots become R-3. They only recommended that the C-4 lot be changed to Local Retail° Mr. Annunziato informed Mrs. Huckle that the frontage on the two lots next to Waters Edge is C-3. Mrs. Huckle commented that then, all of it would be harmonious. - 33- "INUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Mrs. Huckle moved to accept the Planning Department's recommendation on item 35. Mr. Ryder seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. (36) Lake City Trailer Park Chairman Trauger looked at the property and asked what the owner could do with it. He could not even put up a two or three story building without looking at "a 'tin shed". Chairman Trauger informed Mrs. Huckle that the shed was built after the owner was there; the trailers are getting old, and some of them are starting to deteriorate. There was discussion. Mr. deLong asked if the owner could get a Code that would accommodate a marina there. Mr. Annunziato replied that the City does not have the zoning category which would specifi- cally allow for a marina. Chairman Trauger asked about a C-4, and Mr. Annunziato reminded him it could also apply to some other things. Mr. Annunziato said the Planning Department did not think the commercial aspect the applicant discussed with the Board was a viable option, given the fact that there are single family homes to the south, some of which look distressed. He thought if it were all Commercial, they would end up being very distressed. The Planning Department's recommendation was that this property and the property to the south should be put into a High Density Residential category. Someone is building condominiums to the north. There was discussion. Mr. Annunziato told Mr. deLong the vacant four acre piece is Gene Moore's. Over the years, Mr. Annunziato has had conver- sations with Attorney Moore's Land Planner, and he threatens to bring in a request for a PUD, so townhouses can be put in there. This would fit with that recommendation. It would allow for intensification. With R-3, they could have large buffers and put recreation against the shed. Mrs. Huckle asked if the property is currently R-1AA. Mr. Annunziato answered affirmatively. Mr. Ryder noted there were two recommendations. One was that the vacant parcels immediately to the south should be changed to High Density or R-3 zoning. Further on, Mr. Ryder noted he said the single family zoning on lots abutting Dimick and Potter Roads should not be changed. Mr. Annunziato confirmed that - 34- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 was correct and said there is a series of platted lots on Dimick Road. Then a large tract runs from the Intracoastal to U. S. 1. Next is Mr. Smith's property, which also runs from the Intracoastal to U. S. 1, so there are two large tracts that run from the Intracoastal to U. S. 1. There was discussion. Mr. deLong thought it was a step in the right direction to take it out of R-1AA, and he thought the owner would be better off with R-3. Mr. Annunziato thought the two properties together could come to be developed reasonably. There was more discussion. Mr. deLong moved to approve both parts of the recommendation in item 36. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. (37) Veteran's Park Mr. deLong moved to approve item 37, seconded by Mr. Pagliarulo. Motion carried 7-0. (38) Chamber of Commerce Comments. Mr. Cannon explained that this was a series of recommendations made by the Chamber of Commerce. (a) was somewhat redundant and simply endorsed the tree planning program the Planning Department recommended be approved in the E&A report. (b) was a slight modification to a recommendation the Planning Department made in the E&A report. The Department recommended that the developers provide landscaping in the median strips and adjacent rights-of-way. This was an elaboration that the curbs that are constructed and those rights-of-way should meet the Department of Transportation's requirements for median plantings and that they have to be non-mountable curbs. (c) Mr. Cannon read this paragraph from page 1 of the com- ments received at the June 23rd Public Hearing. Chairman Trauger did not see how they could enforce the Chamber's recommendation that home owners and property owners plant flowering trees and bushes, using a list of recommended plants. Mr. deLong did not think the Chamber was talking about enforcing because they used the word "encourage", and he elaborated. There was discussion. Mr. deLong and Chair- man Trauger saw nothing wrong with the Chamber's comments. (d) Mr. Cannon read this paragraph, and said it is required in the City's Landscape Code. - 35- -'INUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 (e) Mr. Cannon advised that public schools are exempted by State law from the City's development regulations. Chairman Trauger asked if they could use the word "encourage". Mr. Annunziato suggested it be, "Encourage public schools and require other public buildings to landscape their property." He agreed with the Members that the post office is exempted from everything. Mr. deLong moved to approve the recommendations of the Chamber as to item 38 with the deletion of item (a) and (d) and with the verbiage change made by Mr. Annunziato in item (e). Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. Mr. Annunziato assumed the Board would want the second sentence of paragraph (c) to remain. (39) Changes to the Traffic and circulation Element Mr. Cannon said these should be taken separately. (a) Knuth Road. Mr. Cannon said this recommendation was to bring the list of Collector Roads and the list of road maintained by the city in conformance with the maps. Mr. Annunziato changed the wording to read, "maintained by the City when annexed." because portions of Knuth Road will not be in the City for some time. Mrs. Huckle moved to approve item 39 (a) with the addition of the words, "when annexed". Mr. deLong seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. (b) Mr. deLong moved to approve item 39 (b), seconded by Mr. Ryder. Motion carried 7-0. (c) Mr. Ryder moved to approve item 39 (c), seconded by Mr. PagliarUlo. Motion carried 7-0. (d) Mrs. Huckle moved to approve item 39 (d), seconded by Mr. Wandelt. MOtion carried 7-0. (e) Mr. Pagliarulo moved to approve item 39 (e), seconded by Mr. Ryder. Motion carried 7-0. (f) Mr. deLong moved to approve item 39 (f), seconded by Mr. Wandelt. Motion carried 7-0. (40) Mr. Cannon said this was a recommendation by the Chamber of Commerce that the E&A Report not make a specific - 36- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 recommendation for the western City limits. If you look at the Land Use Map, he said the Planning Department suggested that, in accordance with the straw ballot the voters approved and also interpreting the State Statutes and the City's annexation policies, the lines formed by Lawrence Road, Knuth Road, and Barwick Road (west of Hunters Run) should be construed to be the maximum western City limits in the City. The Chamber of Commerce argued vigorously against establish- ing these lines and asked that the City consider all proper- ties out to the E-3 Canal. Chairman Trauger asked where the E-3 Canal is. Mr. Annunziato pointed to Military Trail on the overlay and said the E-3 Canal lies 1/2 mile west of Military Trail, where it runs straight north and south. It goes about a mile after the "S" curve. Chairman Trauger commented that no one could get into that area and incorporate because it is in the western area the City provides water and sewer to. Mr. Annunziato thought the point the Chamber was making was that the City does not have a firm policy on how far west they should annex now, but the E&A Report suggests a firm policy. If adopted, it will become firm policy. Mr. Annunziato thought the question reduced to whether they wanted firm policy on western City limits. When they say, "annex now", Mr. deLong asked if they mean the City can annex that, if so desired, when it becomes feasible to. Since the City has water and sewer up and down Military Trail, he asked what harm there would be to show the E-3 Canal as the possible line to annex to if and when feasible. Mr. Annunziato replied that they have interpreted, through prior actions of the City through elections and City Councils, that squaring off was what the public policy was. Now there are valid reasons, for example, to annex both sides of Lawrence Road. If you send a Police car north, Mr. Annunziato said you can split the costs of the car if you have properties on both sides, as both properties will be paying for the use of the Police vehicle. From a management point of view, there is some sense to not squaring off and maybe saying the properties on the west side of Lawrence Road or the west side of Knuth Road, where you can do it without running into the State Statutes. Mr. Annunziato said the recommendation suggests there is some need to perhaps identify where the boundary should be. Mr. - 37 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Ryder wondered if they would meet with a good deal of resistance from people in the unincorporated area° Mr. Annunziato said they looked at the map of developed proper- ties, and it will not be easy to expand westward from Lawrence Road in a deliberate manner. Properties are already developed that do not have annexation agreements, and a problem may be created in terms of having a consistent western boundary. Mr. Annunziato drew attention to the black line on the map and told the Members the potential of having the properties east of the line in the City was very good. West of the line, given the State Statute, the continuity restraints, and the population constraints, it becomes more difficult. That was not to say that ten years from now, the State Legis- lature might redraw the line, and he explained. Mr. Ryder pointed out that the developments are probably happy paying the surcharge for the water and sewer but as far as paying the City tax, it might be something else. Mr. Annunziato stated that they may not have the choice in the future. Chairman Trauger wished to hear from City Manager Cheney. City Manager Cheney recalled there was a straw ballot two or three years ago suggesting the City square off somewhere. Lawrence Road and Knuth Road were the logical places to square off. He said Mr. Annunziato made one point about using the east side of Lawrence Road, which was that the City patrols one side, and the Sheriff patrols the other side. It is a theoretical situation because much of the land on the west side of Lawrence Road is developed, particularly the trailer parks. Some of the property on the east side of Lawrence Road is developed into single family homes. Chances are that the single family homes may not want to go. The homes in Woodside, on the east side of Lawrence Road, are all on septic tanks and wells. Some people in the area would like to have the City water. City Manager Cheney said there is always the possibility that someday, their septic tanks will have to be closed because they are close to the Boynton Canal. If the City is ever asked by the County Health Department to respond because of a pollution problem, then City Manager Cheney said they can annex, the City will provide the water and sewer, and there will be no problem. On the west side of Lawrence Road, there are two or three trailer parks which have their own water and sewer systems, - 38- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 except Northern Pines. Boynton Beach provides water to Northern Pines, and he explained that the City provides the water, and they distribute it. City Manager Cheney said he would not be at all surprised if the trailer parks, includ- ing Royal Manor, sometime get into a problem of water and sewer. If the Health Department says to the City that they need service, the City will be the logical place to service them. City Manager Cheney said the City will be in the position at that time to say to the Health Department that it will service them, but the City has had a long standing policy ~hat where possible, if the City services, they have to annex. Vice Chairman Winter informed City Manager Cheney that Royal Manor has rentals. All of the other lots are individually owned by the people who have mobile homes on them. City Manager Cheney said the owner of Royal Manor could probably decide, by himself, that he wants to annex. He might be shot by his tenants, but he could do that. As a general policy, city Manager Cheney thought both sides of the road should be in the community unless it is a wide, major road like Hypoluxo Road. Hypoluxo right-of-way is in the City of Boynton Beach. Lawrence Road will probably always be a two lane road. It seemed to City Manager Cheney that the City should have the potential for both sides to be in the City. Because of the nature of the lot lines, those lots facing the west line of Lawrence Road will probably end up with a jagged line in the back. At least Lawrence Road is a straight line. Bent Tree, Green Tree, Pine Tree, and Jamaica Bay will not annex unless they are forced to. The City has part of the water or sewage for Jamaica Bay. If the State changes the annexation law and makes the state- ment that urban areas along the east coast are going to be in a municipality so they get the County out of providing urban services, City Manager Cheney thought the policy should be property that fronts both sides of Lawrence Road. He commented that they are going to have some kind of a dual service problem out there anyway. Mrs. Huckle asked what they would do with the yellow parcel. City Manager Cheney thought those people eventually may get together among themselves and say they want better water. - 39 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 He talked to a few people there. One is Acting Director of the Lake Worth Drainage District, and he has often said he would like City water. Mrs. Huckle asked if he was suggesting running the line straight down Lawrence Road to Boynton Beach Boulevard. City Manager Cheney was suggesting they include the frontages on both sides of Lawrence road straight on down, with the thought that maybe 20 years from now, only one agency will be providing services on Lawrence Road, which will be more efficient and save everybody money because the city pays every time the Sheriff goes out of his way to treat something in the east. Mrs. Huckle asked if that would get the whole depth of Knollwood Groves. Mr. Annunziato answered that it would because their property fronts on Lawrence Road. He thought Mr. Cheney was saying to look at the properties which front on Lawrence. The western boundaries of those properties would be the policy for squaring off the City. City Manager Cheney clarified that the frontage on Lawrence Road would be a straight line. They would not care about the jagging on the back lots as long as the orientation of the lots is to the east. Mr. deLong could not fathom that jagged west perimeter road. He referred to the Chamber's recommendations and said the first is that the City's reserve annexation area extends to the E-3 Canal, meaning that no other municipality can annex or incorporate in this area. Secondly, the City provides water and sewer service in this area. Because of those two reasons, Mr. deLong questioned whether the City had an obligation to annex properties out to the E-3 Canal. City Manager Cheney answered that the city does not. Mr. deLong was talking about a moral obligation. City Manager Cheney did not think the City had a moral obligation to annex but thought it had a moral obligation to provide utilities. Mr. deLong questioned whether City Manager Cheney thought negatively of the E-3 being a possible western perimeter. City Manager Cheney thought it was an impractical proposal at the moment and was an unnecessary spur in the city's relationships with the western coalition because those people are not going to priopose to annex. The City has never aggressively annexed property, except the Melear tract and the Mall. From a tax point of view, City Manager Cheney said the City did not want Bent Tree and Green Tree because they do not - 40 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 produce a positive flow, and they will want a lot more services. The City will get less than the water and sewer fee. Mrs. Huckle asked City Manager Cheney to respond to a para- graph in the Chamber's presentation, and she read, "The result of the present State legislation and the County's Utility Service Agreement is to establish an area in which the City has given its word to provide water and sewer service and to annex the land in an orderly manner as pro- vided by Florida State law. As developments request water and sewer in this particular area, the City requires the developer to sign a contract to request annexation at the time the development comes into the City." She asked if that countered anything City Manager Cheney had said so far. City Manager Cheney answered, "No," and added that the City has had those annexation agreements that say that will annex if they are contiguous and will get water and sewer when they annex. It does not say the Council will automatically vote for annexation. It simply says they will agree to annex. The City is left with the opportunity to make that decision at that time. Mrs. Huckle pointed out that it does not say the City has the obligation to annex. It says the people can have that option. City Manager Cheney replied that on many of those, the city has utility service agreements and require them to say they will request annexation if and when they legally can annex. As far as water and sewer, City Manager Cheney told the Members that the city has a fairly current Resolution with Palm Beach County as to where the City's utility services will be and where the County services will be. That was done originally and verified more recently in the business decision. If you are going to build a water plant and build certain sized pipes for a certain size lif't station on the premise that there will be a certain type of development, to cover the cost of that up front capital investment, City Manager Cheney said you want to make sure someone else does not come along and take away a part of that potential budiness because that means that capital cost will have to be paid by everybody else. He said that is just good utility business planning. City Manager Cheney said the original Le Chalet development was taken out of the City's utility service area and serviced by the developers at that time without the City being involved. In addition, the Village of Golf system expanded - 41- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 to take part in Indian Springs. Those were small pieces, but City Manager Cheney said they do affect the size of the system the City is building that they want to get a percent on. The City has now agreed with Palm Beach County in that they have a Resolution as to what the City is going to serve and what they are going to serve. Chairman Trauger asked if they wished to annex both sides of Lawrence Road with the backs of the lot lines. Mr. Ryder stated that would be approving the recommendation of item 40. Motion Mr. Ryder moved to accept the recommendation of item 40, seconded by Vice Chairman Winter. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Annunziato asked if the motion was to include the annexation of both sides of Lawrence Road. Mr. Wandelt answered affirmatively. Mr. Annunziato said that was not the recommendation of item 40. Mrs. Huckle thought they were going to recommend the City Manager's recommendation. Mr. Ryder answered negatively and emphasized that he wanted Mr. Annunziato's recommendation. As both sides of Lawrence Road was mentioned, Mr. deLong thought it was in the motion. He recalled that Chairman Trauger mentioned both sides of Lawrence Road and the rear lot lines. Mr. Ryder told Mrs. Huckle he did not want both sides of Lawrence Road. Mr. Annunziato advised there was a misinterpretation of the motion. Chairman Trauger advised they should rescind the previous action and start again. Motion Rescinded Mr. Pagliarulo moved to rescind the previous motion, seconded by Mr. Wandelt. Motion carried 7-0. vice Chairman Winter pointed out that it does not say specifi- cally the east side or west side of Lawrence Road. Mr. Annunziato explained that they interpreted it in connection with the map. If the Board would give the intent, Mr. .Annunziato said the Planning Staff will make the words work. Vice Chairman winter stated that they were saying the rear property lines of only the parcels fronting on Lawrence Road. He was thinking there may be some exceptions there, as there may be a piece of property that may extend slightly beyond the rear lot lines of some of these proPerties. For example, a lot could be 300 or 400 feet deep on the west side - 42 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 of Lawrence Road. There could be two more lots on the west side ionly 100 or 200 feet deep. Mr. Annunziato did not think that interfered with the comment City Manager Cheney made. Mr. deLong commented that was what would make the jagged line. Motion Mr. deLong moved to approve item 40 with the additional inclusion of the entirety of Lawrence Road and the most westerly lot line of all lots fronting the west side of Lawrence Road. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. Evaluation and Appraisal Report Mr. Cannon said the Board needed to make a finding that the E&A Report meets the statutory requirements for internal consistency. This is now the requirement of the zoning Code. Mr. Ryder so moved. There was no second to the motion. If they wanted any other considerations placed in the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. deLong asked if this would be the time to do it. Mr. Annunziato replied that the Board was now completing its actions. Mr. deLong alluded to the many hearings and said he looked at R-2 and R-3 zoning. He wanted to know why the front and rear setbacks on an R-3 is 40 feet, and is 25 feet on an R-2. Mr. Annunziato replied that R-2 provides only for a duplex, which is somewhat simi- lar to a single family home. R-3 provides for multi-family dwellings, which can be more than two stories. Also in duplex residential categories, you are limited to two story buildings, whereas in R-3, you can go to 45 feet. That is a zoning issue and not a Comprehensive Plan issue. In fairness to people that have limited expenses and are not large developers, builders, or large people generally, and because small people in our society have just about been squeezed out, Mr. deLong proposed that they have conceptual hearings where an individual, whether he be a homeowner, developer, or small builder, can present to the Board plans in crude form without paying a $300 fee. Jupiter and Delray do this, and he thought the City would eliminate a lot of future paperwork, duplication of effort, and a lot of things that do not have a shot at getting through, by advising them at that time whether or not the Board and Planning Department think they have any "shot" of getting through. - 43 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA JUNE 30, 1986 Mr. Annunziato did not think they could get a Technical Review Board recommendation. Mrs. Huckle wanted to know why High Point shows a High Density. Mr. Annunziato replied that it just repeated what was on the 1979 plan. Mr. Ryder moved that the Evaluation and Appraisal Report meets the statutory requirement for internal consistency. Mr. Wandelt seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. ADJOURNMENT As there was no further business to come before the Board, the meeting properly adjourned at 10:45 P. M. - 44-