Loading...
Minutes 06-08-82MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1982 PRESENT Simon Ryder, Chairman Garry Winter, Vice Chairman Lillian Bond Ezell Hester Ronald Linkous Robert Wandelt Simon Zive Carmen Annunziato, City Planner Tim Cannon, Assistant City Planner Chairman Ryder called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. Members of the Board were glad to see Vice Chairman Garry Winter back. Vice Chairman Winter made a rapid recovery from surgery. Chairman Ryder introduced the Members of the Board, the City Planner, Assistant City Planner, and Recording Secretary. He acknowledged the presence of Mayor Walter "Marty" Trauger, Vice Mayor James Warnke, Councilman Joe deLong, and City Manager Peter Cheney in the audience. MINUTES OF MAY 25, 1982 Mrs. Bond moved, seconded by Mr. Hester, to approve the minutes as presented. Motion carried 6-0, with Vice Chairman Winter abstainIng from voting as he was not present at the meeting of May 25, 1982. ANNOUNCEMENTS Although Carmen Annunziato, City Planner, sent letters out to all of the Members regarding the upcoming workshops to be performed by Dr. Bartley, Professor of Urban and Regional Planning, UniverSity of Fl'orida, Chairman Ryder reminded the Board that the workshops ar.e for the benefit of the Planning and Zoning Board, as well as the Board of Adjustment and the City Council, and wilt be on June 16 and June 17 at 7:30 P. M. Mr. Annunziato added that the workshops will be conducted in the conference room (outside of his office), in the Building, Engineer- ing and Planning Department's Building and not the City Hall Chambers as previously scheduled. He sent an update advising Members of the change in location. Chairman Ryder announced that the work- shop for the Board of Adjustment will be on June 22 and 23rd. He said everyone was welcome to attend all of the meetings. COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 OLD BUSINESS None. 7~D BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING: 7:30 P,M. Variance Request Project Name: Barry Seaman, Executive Director Palm Beach County Housing Authority Request: Rezone from R-2 Single Family & Duplex Residential to R-3 Multi-Family Residential Location: 530 NW 12th Ave. 532 NW i2th Ave. 534 NW 12th Ave. 536 NW 12th Ave. Proposed Use: Multi-Family Housing Legal Description: Cherry Hills - Lots 378, 379, 380, 381, 382, 383. Chairman Ryder announced that this was scheduled to be heard at the meeting of May 11, but the Housing Authority asked the Board to consider continuing the meeting because they did not have the architect and other people prepared to attend that meeting. Actually, Chairman Ryder said they would be starting from "scratch" tonight. He said the location was ]ust west of 4th Street and briefly,r~wha~hey were confronted ~i~h wasa matter Of Six/~ots encumbered by four duplexes. Actually, Chairman Ryder said there is a shell for the buildings, not occupied at the present time, which would be for duplexes, which meant eight unitsoon.N.W. 12th Avenue in the Cherry Hill area. He said the proposal was to rehabilitate and turn these four separate units into two quadra- plexes, still providIng eight units. In order to do this, Chair- man Ryder said the area would have to be rezoned to R-3 in order to conform to the density requirements. In a sense, Chairman Ryder pointed out that the six contiguous lots form an island in approximately the center of an area that is zoned R-2. In the event the applicant prevails and the City and Council approve R-3 zoning, Chairman Ryder called attention to the fact that the new units would still be non-conforming, since~hey would not have the necessary setbacks. To begin with, this would be one of the problems, Chairman Ryder further pointed out. Tim Cannon, Assistant City Planner, advised that the Planning Department recommended that the application for'~rezoning ~from R-2 MINUTES ~ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 to R-3 by the Palm Beach County Housing Authority be denied since rezoning this property would conflict with the density prescribed in the Comprehensive Plan and since rezoning would set a precedent for future rezoning (more for families in these areas). Mr. Cannon stated that the applicant was requesting the rezoning for the duplexes to be joined together to create quadraplexes. He showed a survey of the existing property and buildings, and said each one of the buildings is an existing duplex. Unlike other redevelopments in the area, these buildigns have not been gutted, Mr. Cannon informed Members of the Board. He said the floor plans of the buildings remain intact at present, and the applicant wishes to maintain the present floor plan. What the applicant would like to do and the reason he.needs this rezoning is he wishes to create a 286 square foot addition between each pair of duplexes, Mr. Cannon explained. His reason for doing this is that he needs to add square footage to the units in order to comply with the minimum floor area required, as set forth by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Supposedly, this additional floor space would create a usable kitchen and dining area, Mr. Cannon continued. Mr. Cannon advised~.that quadraplexes are not allowed in the exist- ing R-2 district and, for this reason, the applicant is requesting rezoning to R-3. Rezoning the property to R-3 would create a small isolated R-3 district in lieu of an R-2 district, he continued. The R-2 district extends for two blocks to the east and two blocks to the north. Mr. Cannon showed the location, and pointed to the Boynton Canal and 1-95 and Seacrest Boulevard. Mr. Cannon informed the Members of the Board that the existing land use in the neighborhood is predominantly single family and duplex dwellings. He presented a transparency showing the existing land use and said the lightly shaded lots are single family, the medium shaded lots are duplexes, and the black shaded lots are multi- family buildings. Mr. Cannon said everyone could see it was scattered-single family, vacant lots, and a few duplexes in the area. In addition, he said there is a four unit apartment build- ing two blocks to the west and an eight unit apartment building immediately to the east. These apartment buildings and all of the apartment buildings in this part of Boynton Beach were built when the area was zoned for multi-family dwellings, Mr. Cannon advised. However, following the recommendation for the current Comprehensive Plan, this area has been down zoned to R-2 which allows only single family duplex dwellings, Mr. Cannon further advised. Mr. Cannon told Members of the Board that there are two major land use issues surrounding the zoning request. He put the zoning map back on the screen and said the first issue concerns the desirable residential density for the area and the second issue concerns the - 3 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 precedent that this rezoning Hight set for other R-2 areas in this part of Boynton Beach. Mr. Cannon said the property in question, as shown on the Future Land Use Plan, is medium density residential, meaning that the maximum desirable density for this area has been established at 9.68 dwelling units per acre. The existing ~nd' proposed densities of the property are both 22.8 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Cannon said this is the existing density now, and according to the applicant's redevelopment plan, that density would remain. Mr. Cannon advised that the Future Land Use Plan does have a higher density land use category of High Density, which allows 10.8 dwelling units per acre. However, it is felt that since the density of the property already far exceeds this 10.8 dwelling units per acre, it would not make any difference even if it were reclassified to High Density. Consequently, Mr. Cannon said there is no Land Use Amendment requested here. Mr. Cannon stated that it was important to emphasize, however, that the density shown on the Land Use Map of 9.68 dwelling units per acre is considered to be the desirable density for this area. Both the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Strategy Area Plan recommend this density, since higher densities tend to create higher levels of noise and congestion, parking overspills into the swales, and lower property values andot~e_.le~el af~_property main- tenance, Mre Cannon continued. Although the policy statements in the Co~prehensi~p~an' and the Neighborhood Strategy Area study generallY .~efer ~O conversions to higher densities, the s~me arguments against conversions to higher densities could also 'be made against maintaining high densities, Mr. Cannon felt. He said it wo~ld make sense to assume that the same problems that would.accompany conversions to higher densities would also exist if they were to maintain high densities. Mr. Cannon s~id they also felt that ~t would'make sense to reduce the density of such housing whereve~ possible, Although it might be unrealistic to assume that this density could be obtained in the near future, the Comprehensive Plan does require that the City work toward attaining %his density, and the State law does in fact require that all amendments to the City's development regulations be consistent with the density shown'on the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Cannon continued. Mr. Cannon advised that rezoning the property to R-3'sanctions the number of dwelling units. If the number of dwelling were hal~ed, this would bring the density down from 22.8 dwelling units per acre to 11.~4 dwelling units an acre, and this would be more desirable since it would~.be more in.line with the density shown on the land use plan, In most cases where the Palm Beach County Housing Authority rehabilitated ~welling units in this area, M~. Cannon said they have reduced the density from approximately 34 dwelling units per acre down to 17 dwelling units per acre, so the reducing of the number of dwelling units is not unusual frOm the standpoint of the Housing Authority, - 4 - MINUTES - PLANNING~AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 Mr. ~Cannon said the second issue concerns the effect .this rezoning would have on the integrity of the zoning map in this part of the City. It would definitely be a case of spot zoning, Mr. CannOn pointed out. In looking at the map, it would create a relatively small isolated R-3 district entirely for the ~benefit of single property owners. The problems that would result from single high density developments would not be severe, Mr, Cannon stated; how- ever, sanctioning them could-create a dangerous precedent for the entire Neighborhood Strategy Area. Mr. Cannon said there are many other parcels in the Neighborhood Strategy Area where the property owners would be able to maintain higher densities or convert their properties to R-3 zoning. If the City were to approve rezoning of this property, Mr, Cannon felt that the City~s arguments'against similar requests in the future would be severely weakened, and the cumulative effect of spot zoning in this case and other cases would be to undermine the whole basic strategy for impmoving this neighbor- hood, Mr. Cannon pointed out that the question remains as to Whether these buildings could be rehabilitated or not without creating quadraplexes. The Planning Department felt they could be rehabilitated without throwing them together.- Mr. Cannon informed Members of the Board that the applicant has to add at least 36 square feet to conform to HUD~s minimum square area requirement. Mr. Cannon put the building diagrams 'back on to show the Board. He explained that the applicant thought the most economical way to add the square footage would be to add 72 square feet to each dwelling unit by joining the duplexes together. Mr, Cannon said it would be possible to put an addition that would ~eet the HUD requirements by simply putting an addition on each side, which would give a zero lot line effect of building, M~. Cannon advised that this would require variances from the Board of Adjustment. However, he said it would not create duplexes and would not reqUire rezoning, Cannon further adviSed that the existing buildings could also be physically rehabilitated without building a duplex~by gutting all or some of the interior walls and'creating one dwelling unit where there were two before. This would create four 1,0O0 square foot single family dwelling units instead of ~eight ~ulti~fs~mily units, and it would reduce the density from 22 dwelling units per acre to eleven dwelling units 'per acre, As he mentioned earlier, Mr. Cannon informed .the Board that the applicant has converted existing duplexes into single family units on other lots in the area, so the Planning'Department does not feel there is any reason why they cannot do the same in this case. Once again, Mr. Cannon stated that the Planning Depart~nent was against the rezon±ng since rezoning sanctions the existing density, which they feel would be excessive and which is excessive according to the Comprehensive Plan. Second, Mr. Cannon said it would be a case of spot zoning and could set a precedent for the rezonings in the area. Third, Mr. Cannon stated the Planning Department felt that the applicant could rehabilitate the dwelling units without conflicting with the ~ ~ - 5 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 Comprehensive Plan and, without requiring zoning for R-3. Mr, Carmen Annunziato, City Planner, wanted to make sure the Board understood the kinds of things that have occurred in the past with respect to these rehabs and what is being proposed here. He said the Housing Authority has purchased several units of this type, and the standard 'rehabilitation was to take each duplex and make it into a one unit, so there would be two units there for four units, or four units were made into two, and additional floor space was made by joining the units in the center. This resulted in a larger unit (a three bedroom unit as opposed to. two bedrooms), Mr. Annunziato explained. He continued by saying that the reason the applicant has stated it is necessary to ha~e these Units is the qualified need for two bedroom apartments which, in effect, will offset his rent structure in a manner so that he will be able to afford the larger three and four bedroom units~ The rent structure would be offset for the larger units by the smaller units~ Mr. Annunziato further explained, the theory being that they essentially not be subsidized. He said they were good arguments but did not satisfy the Land Use requirements, which the Planning Department is required to report to the Planning and Zoning Board as a part of the Comprehensive Plan Procedure. Chairman Ryder pointed out that Members of the Board'had received Mr. Annunziato's report (which they generally receive about a week ahead'of their meetings) so they should have had a chance to study it. Mr. Linkous wanted clarification of Mr. Cannon's statement that the same purpose would be achieved extending to the east boundary, What Mr, Cannon said, Mr. ~nnunziato· clar.ified, was (,by the process of securing variances),-where the units are joined, instead of having a joining there, you would only have half of that .construc- tion occurring on one side of the unit. He'asked Mr. Cannon to point it out, For example., Mr. AnnunziatO explained, on the lot all that would be constructed would be that half, so-the remaining half would be constructed on. the other side. Mr. Annunziato said they were possibilities but whether the economics would work out for tearing out walls would be something else. 'He also pointed out that they would require variances for a zer.o lot line, Mr. Linkous asked if it was possible to get that without interfering with rules and regulations regarding the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Annunziato advised that it would not be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs, Bond asked what the minimum square footage was that the Government requires for HUD. ~Mr. Annunzla~o replied that it is 650 square feet per unit. Mr. Linkous asked if it was the minimum, Mr. Annunziato answered that it would be the HUD minimum. Mrs. Bond stated that our would be 750 square feet. Vice Chairman Winter asked how much they were going to add on, Mr, Annunziato replied that it would'be something in the nature of 72 square feet to each of the four units. Vice Chairman Winter questioned if that was along the addition. Mr. Annunziato - 6 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 answered~ "Yes~" Mr. Linkous detel~mined that it was 288 square feet, Vice Chairman Winter still had questions which Chairman Ryder thought could~be resolved when they call on the representa- tives of the Housing Authority. Mr, Josh Sus~ Ocean Drive, Members of t~ number of uni rooms and thc if they were because of HU requires so ~ Mr. Sussman i couple of yea housing purpo and Urban Dew housing for 1 man, Advisor to the Housing Authority, 3000 North Riviera Beach, Florida, wanted to make sure that .e Board realized that there' is no change in the ts. In other words, he emphasized they are two bed- re are no more people in them than wo'U~ld be required not, The only reason they are being added on is D, Mr, Sussman continued. He advised that HUD uch square feet for kitchen space. nformed the Board that he c~ame to the City a rs ago, when he made some orientation about the se from its inception? As a former member of Housing elopment {HUD)~, Mr. Sussman has a feeling for ow income or moderate income families.. Mr. Sussman apologized for Barry F. Seaman, Executive Director, Palm Beach County Housing Authority, West Palm Beach, Florida, being unab ~ to attend, Mr. Sussman said the Palm Beach County Housing Authority, in its responsibili%y'~'~at~Bekch County ~s no di'fferent than the Planning and Zoning Bomrd's responsibility to Boynton Beach. They both desire a public service to be continued and to be made available to the public Mr. Sussman said they were trying to do the same thing~for the people as the Planning and Zoning Board. He pointed out that they are here because Boynton Beach asked them to be here. He said they ~re glad to provide their services and want to help Boynton Beach as much as any community in the County, as the Palm Beach County ~ousing Authority, The project ol iginally, as assigned by HUD to the Palm Beach County Housin~ Authority, was 100 units, Mr.~ Sussman informed the Members of th Board, but because of costs and other factors ~t was rather exI ensive to purchase the properties), it was necessary for them to r,sduCe the program to 76 units. They estimate the total development cost to be $3,285,100.00, which is to be spent in Boynton Ben,ch. Chairman Ryde~ asked if he was talking about'what was previously approved. Mr Sussman replied that the total development cost was the latest to-al development cost that they could estimate to be for these 76 ~nits. He said one of the things they did with the project, whic] is unusual was that they are building it in phases, as they found it to their advantage to give out the bids in small pieces because of the locations of the units. For this reason, Mr. Sussman said they decided to do phases. Mr. Sussman gave an example of the kind of things they have done in order to make the project more feasible. He said the key was that they were trying to make units available to families of low and moderate incomes. He said the "department" was doing all they - 7 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 possibly can to help them try to do. the 'job. For example, when they started out with 100 units and could not do it, the department was willing to go ahead and agree that they could do it for 76 units, even though they could not produce the funds. As another example,' Mr. Sussman informed the Board that they pur- chased 96 overcrowded,/very dilipated units and converted them into fifty units, which he sai~ was a very good example of what they are trying to do, Mr. Sussman said they are'trying to build housing units to comply with the zoning of Boynton Beach. He said their goal is to achieve that target, and that they still feel they can attain 76 units. Unfortunately, Mr. Sussman said one of the problems they face in the project is that they seem to..be Outsiders. What they try to do is get with the people every time they set up plans or programs that they thought would be of interest to them with regard to their responsibilities. Mr. Sussman said they talked to the people and went over with them what they had to do, so-they have communication with them virtually all of the time, Basically, what they are trying to do is to rennovate the blighted areas of the City, Mr. Sussman advised, He repeated that they did not go to the City, The City came to them, Mr. Sussman said the City came to them and asked if they would help the City with the housing program. In order to do that, there was a cooperative agreement, which meant they,would cooperate with the City of Boynton Beach and the City would cooperate with them, and they would enter into an understanding that they w~uld make an effort to change the blighted areas in Boynton Beach., They said they would not build new units but would do the blighted ones and improve the City of Boynton Beach. Not only that, but they said one of the aims they would ~have would be to eliminate as much as they possibly could of overcrowding. In a sense they have to eliminate overcrowding, because ithey have certain limits. Mr. Sussman further said that they are familiar with Federal and local regulations, and their housing program is basic in three areas: the need for the housing, the ~eSign for the housing, and the management. Mr. Sussman further informed the Board that they ~oul~d fill the units with families ~h~ can live in them and enjoy tkeir living, In fact, what they were trying to do, he continued, ils to upgrade ~he liVability of families-living in Boynton Beach. Mr. Sussman said their housing design is geared to meet the type of housing to be developed. They, know the requirements of HUD and of the City except for one thing. They Started the project in 1977 or 1978 and were unaware that the City revised i~s R-2 to R-3 or changed its zoning. Mr. Sussman said they were left out and unaware of this fact. Chairman Ryder asked Mr. Sussman how far back he was going and said the zoning was changed in 1975. Mr. Sussman said they started the project in 1977. Mr. Annunziato, City Planner thought Mr. - 8 - ~ MINU~S - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 Barry Seaman was aware of the problems that they had because he discussed at great length' each lot location in, perhaps~ 1978. At that time, Mr. Annunziato said he and Barry Seaman sat down with the Building Official and ~ade extensive interpretations of the Zoning Code and tried to Work in and understand the changes that were occurring in the redevelopment Of-the units, Mr, Hnnunz±ato said they knew at that time there were going to be some problems that they could not overcome, Chairman Ryder noted.that Mr. Sussman was going into What the zoning had been, which was R~3. It was R-3-prior to 1975 and prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive 'Land Use, Chairman Ryder pointed out, and he asked Mr, Cannon to show the map with the street area again. Chairman Ryder said the logic at that time of going from R-3 to R-2 was beCause it was apparent that the development in the area was going in the direction of Rv2, single family homes and duplexes. He referred to the R-2 present there now and the subject location they were talking about was R-3 prior to 1.975. If you go through the area, Chairman Ryder said that generally the trend is to single family and duplex. Hs a result of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, that went to R-2 instead of R~3. Chairman Ryder said there was no quarrel with improving this area and more housing, but the Board was confronted with consider~ ing a change in something they had a logical reason for doing, He said they were confronted with going to an R-3 which, in a sense, negates what they are trying to do and also provides a substantial degree of instability. Chairman Ryder emphasized that the Board was not adverse to what the Housing Authority was trying to do but it poses a problem as to what the future planning is in that area. Generally, Mr. Sussman said the idea of going phases is not' popular in most states, The procedure that is followed is that when you start a project, you ha~e to submit a budget, he explained, One thing you need to concern yourself with is the operating cost of y~ur p~~ Mr, Sussman continued. The problem that they face is that there is a possibiti~ty if they have to give up the units, they may have a deficit operation. While Mr. Sussman did not know if it would be defeated, he said it looked that way to them, and it was of great concern to them. He said they already c~nstructed a good portion of the project. Mr. Sussman called this ~o the Board's attention because this port±on is the last portion of their project and is quite important to the financial stability of the project, Mr. Linkous asked if the project was at the corner of N, W. 3rd and llth. Mr. Sussman could not answer as he does not get into that much detail with the project. He sa~d if Barry Seaman was present, he would know immediately, Chairman Ryder thought they were on both sides of Seacrest. Mr. Hester informed them that it was west of 4th Avenue, right behind Wilson Pools. Mr. Sussman remembered contacting property owners of all the - 9 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 adjacent properties and seeing whether or not they would have any obje~ctions to the~ prop~erti?s involved, and~they ~ad~?~at!Ve~.'resPOnSe. Mr. ~ussman urgea, ana said the Housing Authority urged the BOard to give consideration to making appropriate adjustments in the zoning so that they could proceed with the project, Chairman Ryder asked Mr. Sussman if he was aware that imm.ediately to the west of this location, there-is a structure identical with the one they are talking about, which is under private ownership. Chairman Ryder was surprised that Mr, Sussman did not know. He said he was there this morning; it is privately owned; it~ is the same type of structure, and it is beaUtifUlly kept, fenced and has a beautiful lawn. Chairman Ryder said it was an indication of what might have happened. Mr. Sussman clarified that they are required by their square foot standards to have so much square footage in. the units, The only way the architect could do it was to design it in the way he did, A private owner does not have to worry abOut-that. They are public and have to be concerned about square footage· Donald Stewart McKerchar, Architect, 321 Northlake Boulevard, North Palm Beach, Florida', appeared before the Board, He showed photograPhs of the blighted area which they were rehabilitating, Some were boarded up. Some had eight' people living in them, and Mr. McKerchar said they were a dreadful mess all.~through. In order to build to HUD's minimum property standards, they came up with the idea of taking two duplexes in pairs and joining them together and doing a four unit plan with a raised roof area in the middle. He showed the orig±nal flats, which he said were like concrete block trailers. Mr. McKerchar informed the Board they were in the Cherry Hills sect~ion. Basically, he said they were all the same thing, and what they did was join two together and used all of one side with half Of the middle, To get some character, they raised the center roof, which~has been a happy solution beCause it provided the adequate square footage they need, A lot of them were gutted inside because they were in bad need of repair. Mr. McKerchar showed the finished article in detail. He expressed his satisfaction with the project as 'he felt it was something tha~ has really achieved something out of a blighted area, ~r, McKerchar was very proud to have been associated with it. Mr. McKerchar answered some of the points that were brought out: 1. With regamd~to density, what the Housing Authority is proposing will reduce the density. If you increase the n~umber of square footage in the unit with the same amount of people, that obviously is a smaller density. Mr. McKerchar said they have to do that because there is no way the Federal funds will be granted if they do not provide adequate square footage. Chairman Ryder asked if they would be two bedroom units. Mr. McKerchar stated that the two bedroom units are reqUired by - 10 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 the balance and the room comp., which is always established at the beginning of the program~ It is established by HUD and the Housing Authority. Mr. McKerchar said they do need them in two bedrooms. Mr. McKerchar thought one .of the Planners pointed out they could put the addition on the other side. Technically, it does not work because the kitchens are so placed that you cannot add square footage outside the front_'door and call it part of the dining area on the opposite side of the house. Mr. McKerchar said you could not replace the kitchen because all of the plu~nbing is in the slab, so they are faced with the only way they can have square fo~otage is in the area they show now on the drawing. 0 Someone else brought up a point Mr. McKerchar thought they might explore, if the~e.~is a posSibilityof~them getting a zero lot line, because!~they are not increasing the zoning. He stated that they are not increasing~the room count and they are not increasing anything. Mr. McKerchar emphasized that they are giving more room to the people who'are going in there and taking a blighted area and making something out of it. Mr. McKerchar showed photographs of the units concerned and showed where a two story multi-family house was located to the right, and another two story multi-family house was located to the left. Mr. McKerchar pointed out that the project was sitting between two multi-family houses. When the Housing Authority bought the property, Mr. McKercha~ reminded. Members of the Board 'that it was zoned R~3. He said what. they want~to do is find a way around this technicality, and if it is possible to obtain a variance for a zero lot line, it would be very easy to designate it as a zero lot line, and they would still be counted as duplexes. It seemed to Mr. Linkous that if the zero lot line could be gotten, that would be the way out. Mr. McKerchar wondered if a variance was in the law and if the City had that classification. Mr. Annunziato believed, in concept, Mr. McKerchar was talking about still going with joining the units at conception~ He advised Mr. McKerchar that he could not join those units. M~. McKerchar asked if he meant on a zero lot line. Mr. Annunziato replied, "Under any circumstances without, in effect, creating a use that would be non- conforming with the zoning. That ±s the problem." Mr. McKerchar asked if that was the local zoning fOr a zero lot line. Mr. Annunziato explained that it would be under a PUD in the City's Code. Mr. McKerchar referred to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He wondered if they could get a variance to go with a PUD and said what they were looking for was if zoning is unpalatable and a change in zoning is unpalatable, he appreciated that. What they were trying to find their way around was a simple little technicality because they are not increasing the zoning use of the property, Mr. McKerchar reiterated. - 11 - MINUTES ~ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 Chairman Ryder said Members of the Board were confronted with whether it would impact unfavorably on the future development. He ~aid'whatthey were faced with right now~is rezoning, and that was the way the Board had to look at it. Mr. Annunziato said the prOblem is that a four. unit building is being created in contradiction with 'the R-2 zoning. Mr. Hester's problem with it was that there is a lot of vacant property in the area and if the zoning is changed to R,3, then what is going to keep people in the immediate area from coming in to do the same thing. Chairman R~der pointed out that was the immediate concern. Mr. Hester told Members or. the Board if he could get more on his property, he would if he owned property-in there. As far as zoning, Mr. Hester stated that he opposes spot zoning, He pointed out that the City of Boynton Beach has a plan. Mr. Hester said the reason those places were built like they were was because of the City because there was a lot of "hodgepodge" zoning where you could just build anything~wherever you wanted to build it until it was changed. Mr. Hester could not see changing the zoning to R-3 because he was afraid people who own property would come to the City and ask for the same zoning, and it will get back to the same.way it~a-s:r3be~ore. Mr. Hester also expressed concern that the properties would not be kept up right, and.~they would have more use in there than the zoning calls for, Chairman Ryder expreSsed that the City'w~uld be going backwards. Mr, McKerchar reiterated that they are not going to increase the zoning. Mr. Hester understood that and added that if he can get four units on a lot, then he is going to do the same thing. He told Mr. McKerchar if the City gives it to him, then they have to give it to somebody else. Going back to the essence of what the zoning requirement'is for, and to protect the interests of every- one concerned, Mr. ~cKerchar thought they would be missing a bad bet if they let this go derelict because of a technicality. Mr. Hester asked Mr. McKerchar if he didn't have an alternative to go to the zero lot line or single family units, so he felt they did have an alternative. Mr. Annunziato said there was another alternative. They could create the same the same duplex configuration, making four units into two units, as they have done in many of the other locations~ The reason the Housing Authority does not want to do that has to do with economics. To create the duplex out of four unitst Mr. Annunziato explained, would be to create perhaps a three bedroom unit which would not support itself rentwise. That was what was explained to Mr. Annunziato by Mr. Barry Seaman, and that is the problem. Mr. Annunziato said there is nothing dissimilar from these units than the ones that were made into duplexes. Mr. McKerchar informed the Board that in their surveys and in their reports to HUD, they have to outline to them pr. ecisely how - 12 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, .1982 many two bedroom units they would have. That was based on the need that they foUnd, and Mr. McKerchar said they just cannot make that change. He stated that what they ~ould have 'to do would be to abandon that particular site and find an alternative. Mr. Sussman stated that it would not be too feasible 'because they had already purchased the sites, so what would they do with them. Mr. Annunziato commented that he met with Barry Seaman, Executive Director of the Palm Beach County Housing Authority, and'~Pa~Bea~h County Department of Housing and Community Development. He thought there was a potential for the sale of the property to Community Development. Mr. AnnUnziato said Community Development would probably put units on the property that would be consistent with both the zoning and unit size in a manner similar to what they are doing with manufactured homes developing in that area in many different places. Mr. Annunziato said this was an alternative and there are lots of alternatives, Mr. Sussman told Mr. Annunziato that may be but he would be concerned about the cost factors that would be involved, as to whether or not their budget would come out on the + side. Mr. Linkous proposed a plan to use the easternmost duplex and go east to the lot line and delete that portion on the left which is adding to it, He asked if that would conform, Mr. Annunziato advised that it would then ~become a variance issue for the Board of Adjustment. Mr, McKerchar said they could not do that. Mr. McKercha~r said if they could get a variance to connect the houses with a zero lot line, they could build a duplex on each lot - four duplexes. As he said before, Mr. Annunziato informed Mr. McKerchar they could not do it because they would be creating a fourplex, which would be a contradiction to R-2 zoning. Mr. McKerchar asked what R-2 zoning was. Mr. Annunziato advised it is for single families and duplexes only., Mr. McKerchar asked about a zero lot line. Mr. Annunziato informed him that would be a rezoning procedure to a master plan, rwhich has not been explored. Mr. McKerchar realized doing a PUD would be a lot of work but thought if they could get permission to do a PUD, it would solve everything, Mr. ~nnunziato told him it is a zoning'procedure which is available to any applicant and,' under certain circumstances, the Council can accept a PUD of under five acres. Mr. Zive asked Mr. McKerchar if they do not build, will it remain as a "dumpy" area. Mr. McKerchar thought so. He said this kind of rehabilitation in the private sector is not economical. The only reason they have been able to do it is because Federal funds are provided, Mr. McKerchar said they can build new housing cheaper, in some cases, than the monies that have been expended to bring these up to the standard that they brought them up to. Mr. Linkous asked if it would, cost more to rehabilitate them than new construction. Mr. McKerchar answered that they would be about par for the course, He said rehabilitate is a broad expression. - 13 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 Mr. McKerchar said you can give it a coat of paint, and its rehabilitated, but that is not the way they are doing the housing units. They are putting quite a bit of money into them. Chairman Ryder asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in support of the application. There was no responSe. Mr. Sussman asked if Members of the Board'were amenable to other probabilities other than the R=3. Chairman Ryder fel~ the point was what the .Board isconfronted...withnow,~ andh~ felt Mr. Sussman could appreciate they were very reluctant to go back to an R-3, having recently changed to an R-2. Regarding other means, Chairman Ryder thought that would be somet~hing else. He noted the absence of Mr. Barry Seaman. Mr. Sussman thought Mr. Seaman would have a solution to the problem. Chairman Ryder repeated that Members of the Board were considering the matter of rezoning, and he did not think this was the place to consider any alternative. Chairman Ryder asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the proposal. There was.-no response. Councilman Wright wished to ask a question of Mr. Annunziato. Mr. Annunziato stated that he spoke to Mr. Barry Seaman, and the Housing Authority is very limited in scope with what they can dO with their funding, The only thing that seemed to be plausible from the Community Development's ~iewpoin~ was that if the Housing Authority could not complete their program here,-Community Development might be interested in purchasing the property and constructing units consistent with the zoning. Mr. Annunziato said CoImmunity Development was late in' responding. They were going to report back to him in less than a week but they have not, and Mr. Annunziato said he was unable to get back with them, which is where they are right now. That was Councilman Wright's question because-he had questions, based upon the Federal dolt. arsldrying up, about whether they would be able to move in some other direction. He realized they have been back and forth fo~ several years. Councilman Wright said they may have been a little remiss ~ following through to purchase some of the property when they knew'it was not zoned adequately. He asked Mr. Sussman where Mr. Seaman was. Mr. Sussman said he had another appointment. Councilman W~ight had some problems with that explanation because, as important as housing is in Boynton Beach, he thought he should be here to express his concerns. Mr. Susslman advised that it was a personal matter. Councilman Wright expressed that it was a terrible area and any one who has been there would know that a face 'lift is needed in that area. He did not know what the City could do because he hated to see them allow the area to continue as it is. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Wandelt thought Members of the Board were inbe~ween a_Uock~aDd a hard spo~ ~because they have a very deteriorating area there, and he - 14 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 did like the end product. Chairman Ryder said it was a sore spot because (~f the rezoning. He said if~it was not amatter of rezonlng, it would be OK, but what the Board would be doing in going with it would be negating what was done befor~e. As mentioned· Chairman Ryder po~.nted out that there is a lot of undeveloped area, and the a~ea tha~ has been developed has been-going in the way of single family a~Ld duplexes. To go back to R-3 for just a small section was not . healthy thing, Chairman Ryder thought, He further thought J.t created a degree of instability as t0 what would happen in the f~lture, The way Chairman Ryder saw the proposed develop- ment, he did not blame the Housing Authority, ~t appeared to be a contri~'ed thing where '~hey were trying to add six more units. Mr. McKe2 any. Ch~ thing an~ probably would ma~ Also, she Chairman which ar~ the fron~ will be would be begin wi~ they cou] they wou] felt it ~ being ad~ substanti Mr. Hest~ because done, but get into agreed th zoning, y knew the for that Mr. Bond zero lot said it % understoo general t has been joining f thought r two story story fou on either Mr. Heste 'char interrupted to say they were not trying to add irman Ryder continued by saying it was a contrived . no matter whether it looks good or~ not, and it will look good, the fact ~hat i~ is officially an R-3 .e it impact unfavorably~. uld the zoning go to R-3 and they get the request, Ryder said the City would wind up with two quadraplexes non-conforming. Instead of being set'back 40 feet in · they are only 25. Instead Of 20 foot setbacks, they en or seven, or whatever. What the Board would be doing sanctioning something that would be non-conforming to h and setting up an island in a district they thought d do the other way~ Chairman Ryder said, in this case· d be going backwards. Because of that, Chairman Ryder as the crux of the situation, and it was not a matter of erse to what they ~ere trying to do, but it was a al change in their plans for the future in this area. r was not opposed to the rehabilitation of the area t is needed, and he thought a majority of the work was he still thought when you start changing zoning, you something you would like to get out of. Mr. Hester e area was blighted but repeated that when you change ou open another can of worms for somebody else. He housing was needed but could not' see the zoning change one little area. asked Mr. McKerchar if %here was a possibility for a line, or if that would help the problem. Mr. McKerchar ould be possible if they cou.ld join the units, but he d that was not possib~a. They developed this with the heme to join the units with a ~high roof, That is what planned for the duplexes, In other~words, they were our units ~ogether with a high roof. Mr. McKerchar ezoning was not unreasonable because of the eight unit, apartment house to the right of the units and a two r apartment~house to the left. He said they are flanked side by multi-family 'units which are non-conforming. r said that is what'they do not want to happen again. Mr. McKerchar said if they were to rezone, it would be a small pocket'of multi-family, but it would get them out of their - 15 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 predictament without increasing the density. Mr. Wandelt asked if variances could allow this and not rezone3 Mr. Annunziato replied, "Only in the instance if the units were not joined." Mr. Linkous noted that the applicant had an elongated north and south. He asked if they could not take the one on the left and the diagonal line through that division which they intend to do, and extend those north and south and separate them. Mr. McKerchar showed Members of the Board the actual drawings of the existing plat. They were talking about making the additions adjacent to the~kitchen, which provide the dining area, The proposed plan is like that but adds an area which is a dining area with a glass window to a courtYard. ~r~ McKerchar informed the Board that the additional dining room is suffiCient to allow HUD to approve the plan for a two bedroom, but it impossible to add an addition to the front doors because ±t does not accomplish anything in the plan. Mr. Linkous agreed. Mr. McKerchar pointed out that all of the 'plumbing is already established, so the only feasible place to make an addition would be outside the kitchen where they can use it for a dining space'. Mrs. Bond called attention to the fact that they could do it with a zero.lot line as well. Mr. McKerchar said they could, but there would be contact between the two units. Mr. Annunziato repeated that they cannot join the uni'ts. Mr. Linkous again asked if they could not extend where the diagonal lines are and leave a space. Mr. McKerchar pointed out that it would be a natural area for the collection of rubbish and trash, Mr.' Linkous thought they would have to have at least four feet between them. Chairman Ryder reminded everyone that following the Board's recommendation, the matter will go to Council, which would be a matter of a week or so. He said they n~y~cme ~p with somealternative plans by that time. He clarified that what the Board has to act on is a change in the zoning, From Chairman Ryder~s point of view, regardless of what they were trying to do and regardless of appearance, what they were to act on was whether they were ~going to recommend reverting back to R-3. Mr. Sussman told the Board if they cannot get the eight units, it will create a problem. Mr. L±nkous moved to deny the request', unless they could come up with a solution, in view of the zoning change from R-2 to R-3. Mr. Wandelt seconded the motion, and the motion carried 7-0. The request to rezone from R-2 Single Family and DUplex Residential to R-3 Mult±-F~mily Residential was DENIED. THERE WAS A FIVE MINUTE RECESS. - 16 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 Abandonment Request (?ublic Hearing Conducted 5-11-82) Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Gerald L. Knip Abandonment Dutch Realty Inc. (Hugh Edward David) Gerald L. & Marie Knip East side of-SW 16th St., North of SW 15th St., 508 SW 16th St. Special PUrpose Utility Easement Agandorn~ent Chairman Ryder announced that at the previous hearing, the City was asked to consider abandoning the easement right-of-way that Florida Power and Light Company had in the rear of this particular property and, apparently, it was .that the owner, who contemplated selling his home, would possibly come up with a financial advantage. At that time, the Board received a letter from Florida Power and Light Company, who were explicit in saying that they opposed the abandon- ment because of the fact they had fears .in this location and they had use of the easement. The applicant for the owner maintained that there was not anything there, The Board decided to defer any action so that further information could be provided. In the meantime, the Board has now received a letter from the agent, Dutch Realty Inc., that the house has been sold, and this request has been withdrawn, Mr. Annunziato advised that a motion to scratch womld be appropriate. Mr. Hester moved to scratch the request from the agenda, seconded by Mr. Linkous. The motion carried 7-0. NEW BUSINESS PUBLIC HEARING-: 7:30' P. M. Variance Request Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Nordeak, Inc. Funeral Home Stormet C~ Norem Carrie M. Carter 106 N. E, 9th Avenue Description: Relief from requirements of Article X "Parking Lots", Chapter 5, Section 5-141(g) (3) of Ordinance ~82-8 to allow construction of parking lot driveway on Seacrest Blvd. 98 ft. from intersection Chairman Ryder informed Members of the Board that the variance refers to a requirement under the Section which requires a minimum of 180 feet. Mr. Annunziato said this is a request for a variance to the Parking Lot Construction Ordinance. Basically, it involves construction of the driveway less than 180 feet from the projection line of Sea- crest and N. E. Ninth Avenue. He asked Mr. Cannon to project the sidewalk lines. Projected northward, Mr. Annunziato pointed out that the applicant does not have enough property to provide for 180 - 17 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 feet, He has moved the driveway as far north as he can to 'accommodate the new parking lot construction ~code, Mr. Annunziato added that in all other respects, the layout wou~d meet the requirements of the Parking Lot Construction Ordinance. Mr. Annunziato said the request was reviewed by the Technical Review Board. He read his memorandum as follows: "Please be advised that on Tuesday, June 1st, 1982, the Technical Review Board met to discuss the abovementioned request for a ~v--ariance to the Parking Lot ordinance. The re~]uest is to construct a· driveway on Sea- crest Boulevard less than 180 feet frc~ the intersection of NE 9th Avenue as required by Section 5-141 (g) (3). Consistent with Section 5-144 (c) (4), the Technical Review Board fozwards this recc~mendation and based on the fact that it is physically impossible to provide 180' frc~ the intersection of Sea- crest Boulevard and NE, 9th Avenue recc~mends that the request for variance be approved. ". Chairman Ryder asked if.the Board was dealing with the variance or the site plan involved. Mr. Annunziato' repl.ied that they were dealing only with the variance and not the site plan. He said it was a remodeling which would result in less than $100,000,00 in construction costs. Chairman Ryder asked if there was an existing building and if there would be an addition to it. Mr. Annunziato answered, "Yes," Mr. Annunziato suspected that the Board would be receiving'many minor requests for variances. He said they are seeing a tremendous improvement in the design of parking lots, Mr. Annunziato said it was obvious that every lot will not be able to conform, and there will be minor adjustments. The mere fact that they are getting these kinds of lot layouts has been a real pleasure for the technical staff, Mr. Annunziato added. Mr. Sto ~.rmet C. Norem, 436 N. W. 7th St'reef, Boynton Beach, Agent, came for~rd to answer any questions. Chairman Ryder asked if this was not Mr. ~Norem's enterprise. Mr. Norem explained that Nordeak~ Inc. presently leases the property with an option to purchase. He advised that he is President of Nordeak, Inc.,.and it went in as a proposed funeral home. That was actually the project name, Mr. Norem guessed that they figured that it was Nordeak, Inc. Funeral Home. Chairman Ryder asked if anyone else wished to speak in favor of the request for variance. There was no response. He asked if anyone' wished to speak in opposition to the request for variance and~ received no response. Mr. Hester moved to approve the request 'for a variance, seconded by Mrs. Bond. Motion carried 7-0. - 18 - MINUTES ~ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 Site Plan Modification Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Dos Lagos [PUD) Modification Fred Roth, Project Manager The Satter Companies, Inc, Congress ~venue No. of NW 22nd ~. ~. Entrance Sign, TV Receiving Dish and Enclosure Mr. Cannon, Assistant City Planner, said the site plan modification comes to the Planning and Zoning Board with a positive recommendation subject to staff comments. He said'there are two modifications, which are minor. First of all, the applicant~wishes to construct a 9'4" high by 20 foot wide sign on the median strip of Congress Avenue. He showed north and west and said the sign would be constructed on the median strip, at the entrance of the develop- ment. As shown on the site plan, Mr. Cannon said the sign would be set back ten feet from the alternate right-of-way line for Congress Avenue. The staff had some comments on how far that sign should be set back. Mr. Cannon further told the Board that other proposed additiOns were a community television receiving dish, along with field bUild- ings and a 30 foot high antenna. The receiving~dish and antenna would be located along the north edge of the property along one of the-lakes of the development. Mr. Cannon said the equipment would be screened with a six foot board fence, which ~onld be landscaped. Mr. Cannon read the only staff comments, which were as follows: Engineering Dept.: "Sign to be moved back for proper sight distance," Police Dept,: "Subject to sign being moved back 10 feet." Chairman Ryder asked if the street on the northerly end was Miner Road, but there was no access from Miner Road. Mr. Cannon replied that was right. Mr. Fred Roth, Project Manager, Satter Architectural and Engineering Group, Agent, said they are representing the Satter Companies mn this modification, and their address is 2328 South Congress Avenue, West Palm Beach, Florida. Mr. Roth showed the TV antenna. He told Mr. Cannon it was a 35 foot tower, not a 30 foot high antenna. Mr. Roth pointed to the lake boundary and said the dish woBld shoot out across the lake so there would be no obstructions in f{ont of the parabolic receiving antenna. The building is in the center, and the tower will be in the extreme end. Chairman Ryder asked what the purpose of the dish and the tower was. He wondered if it was for satellite. Mr. Roth said it was microwave reception, and the tower would be a straight TV. Mr. Annunziato informed Members of the Board that it would be landscaped and would go to the Conmn. unity Appearance Board. Mr. Roth said the landscaping would be consistent. He said it was part of the master overall landscape plan and ~o~ld conform with what - 19 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 they have already proposed in the area. as far as general land- scaping, ground landscaping, and landscaping for individual areas and for each individual building. Chairman Ryder asked what the status was of their development. Mr. Roth said they were ~oving right along. He showed an area they call Tradewinds Patio~Homes and said the spine road is being constructed. Mr. Roth 'informed the Board that the water and sanitary are in and have been accepted by both the Utilities Department and-the County Health Department. They have a model building, which is 95% finished. Mr. Roth pointed to a recreation area which was half complete and stated that half of the single family area was also being completed; the road~is in and water and sewer are in. He stated that they have started construction of their model homes. The south half is the furtherest undeveloped. Mr. Roth said this area is presently being constructed right now with the underground being~ finalized. He showed another area which is still being brought to grade as far as fill requirements go. Chairman Ryder asked if %hey were ready to show anYthing yet, Mr. Roth replied that they would have their preliminary opening on a small scale probably towards the endof this month. OnCe they complete the model buildings and the entire complex up there, they will have a grand opening for the north half of the project. Mr. Linkous asked where the sales office was. Mr. Roth advised that they were going to reestablish a new model center. Mr. Roth showed the sign layout and the engineering drawings whiCh were drawn to show it. He had them blow the site plan up so the Members of the Board could' see the intersection. Mr. Roth said there was a question concerning line of sight. They added the standard line of sight on there so that they could see with the ten~ foot setback, they achieve the required line of sight information proposed on the alternate right-of-way which he has shown with the proposed four lane section. Mr. Roth said of course, that was just estimating what the County is going to do when- ever they build that. He said the heavy lines indicate what is being developed out there right now. That will be the construction they are finalizing with their left turn lane. He pointed to the stripe separator. Mr. Roth said the existing right-of-way was the old right-of-way line. The alternate right-of-way line is actUally now the right-of~way line established by record pIats, so there is no existing right- of-way line. Chairman Ryder asked what the construction of the sign was, Mr. Roth showed what the sign will look like and said the center portion will be a poured concrete member. The sign'itself will be supported on wood beams that will be constructed through the - 20 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 centerpiece, and the sign end faces will be sandblasted wood. Mr. Roth told the Board there is actually a base underneath the center section. He said the rim aroUnd.'it was strictly a planting area. To summarize his points, Mr, Roth.said they would like to have the sign at the ten foot and-he believed it would provide the adequate sight distance, However, Mr. Roth said they will allow whatever is necessary, Mr. Annunziato said there was a feeling on the park of the Police Department and the City Engineer that there might be some potential conflict with the line of sight,'with the location of the sign Where it is and the potential of people stopping or per- haps cruising through the sign and not taking the opportunity to look north and south. The Technical Review Board did not feel that ten feet was a major inconvenience. Mr. ~nnunziato told Mr. Roth he could make the sign visible, and he said it was the recommendation of staff that it would be a safer sign location if it could be moved back ten feet. Mr. Roth disagreed technically but said they bad no problem with it and would go along with. it. He said he could speak for the applicant. Mr. Wandelt moved to accept the site plan modification with the sign to be moved back ten feet, and subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Zive and carried 7-0. DiscUssion Item Palm Beach County Zoning Petition ~82~84 providing for the rezoning of the Trade Winds Estates Subdivision, First Addition, from RM-Residential Multiple Family .(iMedium Density) to RS- Residential Single Family Mr. Annunziato said this was another request of monitoring by Palm Beach County for Palm Beach County mn Palm. Beach County to rezone the Trade Winds Estates area located approximately south of Where the Sun Wah restaurant is, on the east side of U. S. 1, to a more restrictive single family zoning classification, He said it was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is an action by the County staff in behalf of the County Commission Mr. Annunziato felt it brought the density llne more in line with the Comprehensive Plan and saw no reason for the Board to comment. He suggested the Board make a receive and file motion. Mr. Linkous asked if it would interfere in any way, shape or form with anything that had been bought with. the intended use and whether this would negate this. Mr. Annunziato replied that perhaps it could. Mr. Linkous wondered if'it was passed, would the City get into the same situation. Of course, he realized it was bought after the ComprehensiVe Plan went through (he meant the previous case) and wondered if this woUld be a situation like that. - 2~ - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD JUNE 8, 1982 Mr. Linkous clarified his question by asking if people bought property, intending to use it, and if this goes through, they cannot use it. Mr. Annunziato replied that there was a potential of that happening. Chairman Ryder said you always have that possibility. It bothered Mr. Linkous~ Mr. Winter did not think there were any lots in there that could be developed for anything other than single family residential. Mrs. Bond reminded him that there are a lot of dUplexes in there. Mr. Annunziato said they could make comments at County Public Hearings, if it went before the City Council with that recommenda- tion. He again suggested that they receive and file because he did not know whether there was too much the Board could do about it. Mr. Annunziato said they could not argue it because it was not in the City. Mr. Linkous made a motion to receive and file, seconded by Mr. Wandelt. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Annunziato said the City Council three months ago asked that the City be informed of all zoning actions involving actions in the reserve annexation area. The procedure they established in response to that was that they would first be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Board. -If the Planning and Zoning Board thought there were good and sufficient reasons for the City Council to take a position in these issues, then they would make that recommenda- tion to the City Council, and the City Council could go on record and instruct the City Manager or whoever to<~ appear before the County. Mr. Annunziato said the City is evaluating the applica- tions and are getting the information from the County. So far they have just received and filed them because they have found them to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Annunziato said they are guarding against actions that are inconsistent with the County Comprehensive Plan. He thought the Council should be made aware of any situations like that. Chairman Ryder again reminded Members' of the Workshop on June 16 and 17 at 7:30 P. M. He announced that the nex~ meeting will be the second Tuesday of July. Mr. ~Wandelt said he will be in Maine. Mrs. Bond told the Board she was going away on the 2nd of July and would be back on the 16th. ADJOURNMENT Mrs. Bond moved to adjourned. There being no'further business to come before the Board, the meeting was properly 'adjourned at 9:15 P. M. Respectfully s__u~itted, Patricia Ramseyer Recording Secretary (Two Tapes)