Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Minutes 02-09-82
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1982 PRESENT Simon Ryder, Chairman Garry Winter, Vice Chairman Lillian Bond Ronald Linkous Ezell Hester Robert Wandelt Simon Zive Carmen Annunziato, City Planner Tim Cannon, Assistant City Planner Chairman Ryder welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. He introduced the members of the Board, the City Planner, Assistant City Planner, and the Recording Secretary. Chairman Ryder acknowledged the presence of Vice Mayor Walter "Marry" Trauger, Councilman deLong, and City Manager Peter Cheney. MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 1982 Chairman Ryder said it was called to his attention that Bert Peter, who appeared with regard to the application of Ridgeway Builders and was concerned about the matter of drainage, was a Professional Engineer. Chairman Ryder said page 9 of the minutes should be changed to reflect this, as it shows a degree of competence and expertise. Chairman Ryder informed the Board that Mr. Peter had other references but Chairman Ryder ~id not see where they had any significant bearing on what happened. Chairman Ryder advised that Mr~ Peter appeared before the Council following the Board's meeting and again expressed concern about the drainage. Mr. Peter was assured by the Council, as well as by the City Engineer, Tom Clark, that the matter would be taken care of. Mr. Linkous moved that the minutes be approved as corrected. motion was seconded by Mrs. Bond and carried 7-0. The ANNOUNCEMENTS None. COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Ryder received a memorandum from Craig Grabeel, Energy Coordinator. Carmen Annunziato, City Planner, said the City has entered into negotiations to place a recycling center just to the east of the water plant on ~W©olbright Road. Mr. Annunziato told the Board people will be able to go there and depos±t papers and receive a voucher which can then be cashed at local financial institutions. They are hoping to have it open to the public on Thursday, March 4. OLD BUSINESS None. MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:30' P. M. Proposed OrdinanHe replacing Section 5, Article 10 Parking Lots in its entirety II. Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment concerning Section 1t, Subsection H, ProVision of Off-'Street Parking Spaces Chairman Ryder said the Board had two issues before them which were the subjects of public hearings. They were duly advertised, and there was a Notice of PUblic Hearing. Chairman Ryder said the Board had copies of a letter to City Manager'Cheney from City Planner Carmen Annunziato with the recommendation.that .it be placed before the Planning and Zoning Board. Chairman Ryder further informed the Board that there was a memorandum from Mr. Annunziato accompanying the papers, wherein he referred to the-memo just mentioned, dated January 14, 1982, copies of the two proposals, copy of a letter which was distributed to several agencies requesting review of the proposals, copy of the list of agencies receiving the pro- posals, and the Notice of Public Hearing. Chairman Ryder said the issues were as follows: One was the proposed ordinance, which would be part. of the Boynton Beach Code, replacing Section 5, Article X. Chairman Ryder informed the Board it dealt with parking lots in its entirety and, specifi- cally, with the construction, design and layout of parking lots. Chairman Ryder said it should be of tremendous value, ~not only for the City people who review the plan, but to architects, engineers, and developers. In add±tion to the various regulations, typical layouts are proposed, Chairman Ryder continued. The second issue was proposed zoning ordinance amendment to Section II, Subsection H, Provision of Off-Street Parking Spaces, Chairman Ryder continued. This would deal with the amount of spaces required, depending on the various uses and specifically outlines the spaces requiredl Up until now, Chairman Ryder said parking stalls had been delineated as ten feet wide and twenty feet long, or 200 square feet. Under the proposed ordinances, the dimensions would be 9x18, so you would be saving almost 20% in area. Chairman Ryder commented that the City Planning Department and other members of the City staff have spent a lot of time on it, realizing its need and, in the first instance, providing uniformity with regard to layouts of large traffic lots. Mr. Annunziato proposed to address the parking lot construction ordinance and give an explanation and analysis of the off street parking. Mr. Annunziato felt the ordinance stood on its own. He said the staff had been working a long time on park regulations. They found the current parking lot construction regulations were not current. They were incomplete and. incons±stent with existing policies and,in-some instance~ not even appropriate to the subject. Mr, Annunziato said they began to analyze and take into account the kind of comments that come to the Planning and Zoning Board from the staff members concerning parking lots. - 2 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Mr. Annunziato advised that they tried to create a file-in numbers ordinance proposal. Mr. Annunziato said someone could take the ordinance, use it as if it were a cookbook, and design a parking lot in the City of Boynton Beach which he felt would be acceptable to the City Planning and Zoning Board,~ the Staff, and to the Council, because it incorporates current thinking. The two highlights of the proposal were reduction in size of the parking stall and the parking bay, Mr. Annunziato continued. An analysis of the American fleet was provided for them, the size of the fleet and where it was going in the future~ Mr. Annunziato said the evidence was conclusive that the need for the 10x20 parking stall no longer exists. As Chairman Ryder said, Mr. Annunziato pointed out that the amount of asphalt used could be reduced 20%. The other change concerned, the fact'that'there they. have a pro- vision for allowing for once a week peak traffic demands (like churches, stadiums, etc.). There would be a provision for non-paved parking if they could submit to the-City positive evidence in connection with the site plan that there- is a 9:00 to 12:00 peak on Sunday and the remaining hours in the week, the property is not used for parking. Mr, Annunziato read that-what was required~was six inches of compacted, approved shell rock or lime rock on a compacted subgrade with a prime coat and one inch of'compacted hot mix asphalt. In the alternative, four inches of concerete with wire mesh or an equivalent combination of improved subgrade and surface materials such as sod on eight inches of stablized subg~ade or paving blocks or turf blocks is acceptable, consistent with the use, and approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Annunziato said they tried to establish criteria which were fair and justifiable and tried to provide objectives which the ordinance is trying to accomplish. They .addressed the issue of major driveways serving shopping centers and wh~re driveways should be located. With regard to landscaping,~ Mr. Annunziato said they point out that parking lots have to be designed'wi~kChapter 7,5, Article II, Boynton Beach Code in mind. Als©, Mr. Annunziato said the~ point out that handicap requirements must be. addressed. Further, Mr. Annunziato told the Board they~'tell~-peopte~they have to have a traffic control plan and a lighting plan and explain to them the level of illumination the City recommends. There are 'specifications for drainage, covered parking, and fire lanes. Mr. Annunziato said they also list what would be required as a part of a permanen~ application. -They also see tha~'the same information is required for site plan approval. Mr. Annunziato believed there was a need to provide for variations to the Code in instances where the unpredictable is going to occur. They have set ~he Planning and Zoning Board up as th~ body which 'would grant the variance,~ based on the following: - 3 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ~ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 "(1) That the requirements fora public hearing have been met; (2) Tb~t the reasons set forth in the application justify the grant- ing of the variance, and. that the variance is~the min~ variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, or strUcture; (3) That the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of this Article, will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and (4) That a recor~endation has been forwarded from the Technical Review Board ." An interesting thing they learned was the ability to stop work or, if necessary, prosecute violations of the Code, Mr. Annunziato informed the Board. Mr. Annunziato said the proposed ordinance 'came to the Planning and Zoning Board after'four or five drafts, which he felt resulted into a better proposal. They also asked for public comment on the Code but have not received any asi~of today. Chairman Ryder thought each issue should be taken one at a time rather than trying to lump' them together. Samuel Scheiner, 528 S. E. 27th Terrace, Boynton Beach, Registered Architect, State of Florida, commented that he thought the ordinance was very comprehensive, and was not appearlng to criticize. He agreed with Chairman Ryder that it will be very helpful for applicants in the future. However, Mr. Scheiner called attention to "(j) Handicap Requirements" on page 4 of the first ordinance titled "Article ~×, Parking Lots"' and said the requirements shOuld be spelled out, not just mentioned. On page 5, "Section 5-143. Permit A'pPl'ica~ion, (1) Location of handicap parking stalls plus signs and .access ramps", again, in the layout, Mr. Scheiner thought handicapped .parking should be as close as possible to the main entrance of the building' so that people in wheelchairs would have an opportunity to get into the building without traveling a great distance in a parking lot. Mr. Scheiner wished to compliment the City Planner and his staff on their work, as it was very comprehensive and a great job. Chai~rman Ryder asked Mr. Annunziato if he had the Handicap Require- ments in his possession. If not, Chairman Ryder suggested perhaps Mr. Scheiner could help with that, because it was sOmething Chair- man Ryder felt a person coul~ be very concerned about. Mr. Scheiner also recommended that a loading zone chart of some kind indicating the number of handicap parking spaces per parking lot should be indicated in the ordinance. Mr. Scheiner had the latest Federal Registry. In there, Mr. Scheiner said they indicate the ~equired minimum number of spaces for a parking lot. For example, Mr. Scheiner said a parking lot that has one to 25 - 4 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOA~ FEBRUARY 9, 1982 cars has to provide one parking space .for a handicapped person. From 26 to 50 would require two parking spaces for handicapped persons; and from 51 to 75, there should be three handicapped park- ing spaces. Mr. Sche±ner repeated that the Code should spell out exactly what is required. Chairman Ryder agreed with Mr. Scheiner. In the review of the proposal, Mr. Annunziato said several items like that came up,. where they were referring to other Codes. Mr, Annunziato explained that in referring to other Codes, they were trying to include them in the ordinance by refereRce.-For example, Mr, Annunziato said if the Handicap. Requirements were changed from one parking space for a handicapped person to two parking spaces in a parking lot from~one to 25 cars, the ordinance would be out of date. S±nce. it is spelled out in .each instance how many parking stalls are required, depending on the use of the structure, Chairman Ryder~ thought the architects and engineers should be told right off that so many handicapped stalls are needed for so many cars. In addition, Chairman Ryder a~¥ised they could also say-, "in accordance with the State Handicap Code Requirements .or latest revision thereof." Mr. Annunziato said he would rather require a minimu~ number of spaces or have the City's own requirement than refer to the other Code as a basis and to just try to list a chart which may be out of date. Mr. knnunziato pointed out that the other requlation changes. Chairman Ryder felt ±f they spell out the minimum number, in each case, of handicapped stalls, they would be completing all of the information that they would like the people to get. Mr. Annunziato commented that they would be listing the number of handicapped stalls that the City of Boynton Beach would like to see required. Chairman Ryder asked if they would conform with the State. Mr. Annunziato said he did not know, as he would have to talk with the Building Official. In Mr. Linkous' opinion, if somethingunpredictable like that would occur, there would be a variance to take care of. He referred to Section 5-144, "Variances tO thfs Article" at the end of page 5 of the ordinance. Mr. Annunziato stated that they would prepare someway to require the minimum number of handicapped parking spaces. He reminded the Board that the Code is still growing. Mr. Annunziato said it would be dynamic to have to amend an ordinance everytime another ordinance changes. CHAIRMAN RYDER CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING AS TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE, REPLACING SECTION 5, ARTICLE 10 - PARKING LOTS IN ITS ENTIRETY. Chairman Ryder called attention to Burger King, and advised that traffic was not moving the way. ~t was intended or the way Council approved it. He said the'plans were approved,, but now they find the signs are inadequate and in the other instance the signs are in the wrong place, Chairman Ryder suggested that on page 4 of the ordinance, they should add "9", which would imply that the ultimate responsibility with regard to the proper moving of traffic - 5 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 within and to and from the parking space is the responsibility of the applicant. Chairman Ryder said they could see now that some changes will have to be made in connection with Burger King. He said that would provide the particular instance. Chairman Ryder repeated that the intent under which the layout of Burger King was submitted and approved by the City Council is not being carried out. Basically, what Chairman Ryder had in mind was that the over- all responsibility still remains with the applicant with regard to carrying out the intent of the traffic movement to and from the parking space and within the parking space as approved by the City Council. ~ith regard to Burger King, Chairman Ryder no%ed that the one new curb cut on Federal Highway is meant for ingress only but is being used for both ingress and egress, ~caus±ng~problems. Purposely, at the time, the Planning Board had relegated traffic where~ they could to 18th Avenue, as it was a relatively quiet street. The other instance Chairman Ryder referred to was the first cUrb cut on 18th Aven~ue, when you come off of Federal Highway. Chair- man Ryder pointed out that was intended for exit only and is being used for'an entrance, which means you get scissor movement of traffic coming out of the other three entrances or exits on 18th Avenue. 18th Avenue has four curb cuts, Chairman Ryder added. That is all wrong, Chairman Ryder continued, in addition to the fact that traffic is being ~beefed up" with additional left turns to the south going to Burger King, coping with left turns to the no~th going to McDonald's. Chairman Ryder thought the City should try to correct that. Specifically, Chairman Ryder reiterated, the Burger King installation was approved on the basis he mentioned, trying to ease the traffic situation as much as possible. Mr. Annunziato said the overall intent of the traffic control on the site is to have the responsibility for the proper traffic move- ment remain with the applicant, which can only be de%ermined after the building is completed. Mr. Annunzlato commented that there may be some problem trying t~o enforce-things after a c/o is issued. Generally, you can see before issuing the C/o whether the arrows are going to be effective, Mr. Annunziato advised. Mrs. Bond noted they were talking about new control of parking lots. She asked what happens to the older parking places and ones where the land is all broken up. Mr. Annunziato answered that unless and until somebodY wants to modify the parking lot or add square foot- age to any building, he did not think there was anything they could do to require people to maintain their parking lots. Obviously, they could mitigate a hazard, Mr. Annunziato advised, but as far as striping or patching pot holes, he did not think they could do any- thing. - 6 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY'9. 1982 Chairman Ryder mentioned SUnshine Square. Mr. Linkous objected s~nuously, and was sorry Vice Mayor Trauger left the meeting. Mr. Linkous said he happens to have a financial interest in Sunshine Square. He noted Vice.~ayor-Trauger said it was full of pot holes. When Mr. Linkous asked Vice Mayor Trauger about it, he said someone told him it was full of pot holes, Mr. Link.ous further questioned Vice Mayor Trauger, and~Vice Mayor Trauger admitted that he did not see them. Mr. LinkoUs repeated that he had a financial interest in Sunshine Square, and that Vice Mayor Trauger brought out the pot holes in the presence of a whole roomful of people. Chairman Ryder said he'meant Causeway Square and remarked that nothing is done, Mr. ~nnunziato reiterated that the-',City~has.~the authority to mitigate nuisances and they are attempting to do some- thing about it. Mr. Annunziato did not know if. they qualified as a nuisance. Mr. Annunziato referred the Board to page 1 of the proposed Ordinance, "Section 5-138.· Scope." Mr. Annunziato read the second sentence: "In the insfanCe of a parking lot serving an ~.existing building or group of buildings where said building or group of buildings 'is/are proposed to be enlarged, the entire parking lot shall be modified to meet the requir~nents of this Art%cie." Mr. Annunziato advised that was, in effect, a retroactive approach. Mr. Annunziato wanted everyone to under- stand and feel comfortable with that. Vice Mayor Trauger returned the meeting, Mr~. Linkous advised him he had just been talking about Sunshine SqUare, which Vice Mayor Trauger had alluded to, and in~ whichhe (Mr. Linkous) has an interest. Mr. Linkous said he thought Vice Mayor Trauger said it was hearsay that there were pot holes there. Vice Mayor Trauger said he made a'reference 'to apot hole-.in Sunshine Square However, he said Causeway Square and Boynton Plaza. Mr. Linkou-s thought Vice Mayor Trauger alluded to both shopping centers when ~he said "both shopping centers and hamburger row." Vice Mayor Trauger replied he did not say there were any pot holes there, he said it looked rather beat. Chairman.Ryder said they were just discussing the miserable conditions in Causeway Square, or the parking lot in Causeway Square, which is pretty bad. Mrs. Bond asked about a restaurant in Causeway Square. Mr. Annunziato informed 'the Board that at one time there were plans to construct a restaurant adjacent to the Intracoastal. If that person came forward with an application now', Mr. Annunziato advised that not only the parking required for his building but also all of the parking that serves the shopping center would have to be brought up to Code for driveways, landscaping, entrance roads, and filling pot holes. Mr. Annunziato asked if the Board would like to go through the ordinances section by section. Chairman Ryder thought the Board had a good, general review. He said the Board did not propose to take any action tonight. Chairman Ryder said the public hearing had been started and he thought it would be advisable to have a continuance to the next meeting because of the possibility there - 7 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 would be further input from the public, which the Board would welcome. Chairman Ryder said the Board would also do that with the other ordinance. Mr. Annunziato reminded Chairman Ryder that the hearing for this proposed ord~inance was closed, so he did not believe the hearing could be continued. Mr. Annunz±ato ~suggested the action on the ordinance should be continued. Chairman Ryder agreed. Mr. Winter could not see the point of having handicapped parking when the City does not bother to enforce it, He said no one seems to care about it. Cars park in handicapped parking. There was discussion about illegal parking and entrances to McDonald's. Mr. Linkous remarked that he read and reread the proposed ordinance and thought it was excellent. Mr. Hester moved that ProPOsed Ordinance replacing Section 5, Article 10 - Parking Lots in its entirety, be tabled until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Bond and carried 7-0. Chairman Ryder commented that the next meeting may be the last one before the Board completes its terms_ as it would depend on what the new Council does with regard to designation of appointees to the various Boards. Chairman Ryder thought it would be advisable to consider the ordinances at the next meeting. Proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment concerning Section 11, Sub- section H, Provision of Off-'Street Parking Spaces Chairman Ryder said this spelled out the specifiC requirements in the way of parking and other regulations, depending on the pro- posed use of the structure in each case, whether it is residential, commercial, or whatever. Tim Cannon, Assistant City Planner, informed the Board that the proposed amendment largely excluded arrangements concerning park- lng lot construction and design from the Zoning Code. They largely restricted the content of this particular subsection to the division concerning the number of parking spaces for each use. Mr. Cannon pointed out there were several exceptions to what he just said.. He referred the Board to one exception on page 1, paragraph 2. Under the parking lot construction ordinance, Mr'. Cannon said there is no standard for requiring maintenance of the existing parking lots. However, Mr. Cannon told the Board they would see that in paragraph 2, page 1, they do require that, "All off-street parking facilities shall bemaintainedanddrainedso as not"to cause nuisance or danger . ." Mr. Cannon said the paragraph already exists in the present Zoning Ordinance. - 8 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Chairman Ryder asked if it would include landscaping. Mr. Cannon replied that the Landscaping Code requires landscaping in its language. Mr. Cannon explained that the intent of this paragraph is so that all parking lots, regardless of whether'they have been constructed since the passage of the ordinance just read, or before that, ~<~ would still have to be maintained and be free of pot holes. Mr. Cannon also called attention to another requirement in. the ordinance, contained in paragraph 6, page 1. Mr. Cannon said they were proposing where the uses are once a week, that the use will allow them to substitute 50% of their required parking spaces with Sodded areas. However, access and driveways have to be paved in all cases, Mr. Cannon continued. Mr. Cannon informed the Board that Mr..'Bob Basehart, Executive~Director, Palm Beach.~County Planning, Zoning and Building Department, suggested that they also have a pro- vision allowing usage where there is a peak demand at one time of the year, such as seasonal. They will also allow them to substitute sodded areas. Mr. Cannon advised that Palm Beach County is also in the process of reviewing its ordinances. There are four main problems witch the existing offstreet Ordinance, which Mr~ Cannon said ~this ordinance attempts to correct. There are a number~ of uses not covered under the existing ordinance. Among these are warehouse, recreational facilities, and commercial uses, Mr. Cannon Continued. Mr. Cannon said they added a blanket provision for commercial uses. However, Mr. Cannon informed the Board, there are differences between the parking demands in different commercial uses. What they tried to-do was differentiate the different commercial uses. Probably the biggest problem with %he existing ordinance is the practicality of enforcing some of the standards, Mr. Cannon advised. For example, Mr. Cannon said restaurant parking is presently based entirely on seating and number~of employees. It is hard to enforce it because a restaurant can always hire more people and put in more seats, Mr. Cannon explained. Medical facilities can add more doctors. Probably the most troublesome of commercial uses was based on retail floor area, which can change depending on the lay- out of the particular store, Mr. Cannon further explained. Mr. Cannon said they have based standards on easily accountable or qualified things, which would be the entire floor area to the building, including all of its accessory uses, They also used standards such as beds for hospitals rather than by going by number of doctors. In some cases, they have kept a standard, Mr. Cannon told the Board. They still require one for two employees in industrial buildings but also have a minimum of one for 500 square feet. In restaurants, there is still the requirement of one for three seats. They also ha~e a'~minimum of' not less than 1 for 100 square feet, Mr. Cannon continued. Mr. Cannon said the third problem was that in some cases, the - 9 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 standards were inadequate to cover the parking demand. The most recent example was the hospital, Mr. Cannon'recalled. They increased the standards for hospitals to two parking spaces for one bed. Presently, the commercial standard is one for 200 square feet and none for storage floor area. That was changed to o~e for 200 square feet of total floor area-, Mr~. Cannon advised. Now they are more in line with the ordinances of the surround~ing cities. For other uses, parking standards were relaxed, Mr. Cannon continued. For example,.shopping centers were reduced from one for 150 square feet of retail floor area to one for 200 square feet of gross floor area. Mr. Cannon advised that was from a rather extensive study of the Urban Land Use the City did concerning park- ing demand~by shopping centers. The standards they came up wi~h' were based on research studies, including the Urban Land Use Study, survey on parking ordinances, and parking done by. the American Plannin~ Association. The ordinances of nearby cities were reviewed and also Palm Beach County, Mr. Cannon further advised.. Mr. Annunziato passed out a chart compar'~g -the proposed pa~king ordinance with. the existing parking ordinance and comparin~ the existing standards with Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, Delray Beach,~and Palm Beach County. Finally, Tim Cannon went out a~d actually counted the number of parking spaces for different uses. They also counted the number of spaces actually provided by~ the owners of different~uses. The standards they came up was baSed On the best available know- ledge, Mr. Cannon continued. Mr. Cannon said the four main~ pa~tS of the ordinance were on pages 1 and 2, which were the rules. Mr. Cannon called attention to paragraphs 7 and 8, page 1, and read: "7. Parking space requir~ents shall be ccmputed on the , . gross floor area . . Mr. Cannon stated that gross floor area would include accessory uses. On page 2, Mr. Cannon referred the 'Board to paragraph 13, This paragraph would allow for the ~eveloper to come up 'wit-h some kind of quantitative evidence if there are uses that have parking ~demands at different times of number of parking spaces reduc have to be approved by the Cou and told the Board he had ment asked the Board to note the Mr, Annunziato said this was s time on. They~wanted to make mess. Mr. Annunziato read fr~ the day. Then they can have the ~d, Mr. Cannon said, but it would ~cil. Mr. Annunziato interrupted ioned the retroactive approach. He last sentence of paragr.auh 15. Dmething they spent a great deal of ~omebody go' back and clean up the n paragraph 15: ". .Where a structure or use is enlarged or increased in capacity by any means, including adding dwelling un±ts, guest rooms, floor area, or seats, the minimum number of parking spaces shall be cc~puted by applying these requi~ments to the entire structure or use." - 10 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Mr. Annunziato explained that it meant if a person cannot provide the number of parking spaces consistent with this Code, he could not have an addition. Mr. Annunziato said it was important to the ordinance that either you make it work., or you cannot expand park- ingwise. Chairman Ryder noted paragraph 10 referred to a major shopping center which, in addition to stores, would possibly have a theater and a restaurant. Chairman Ryder asked Mr~ Cannon how they would get the total. Mr. Cannon replied that regardless of the uses in a shopping ~enter, there would be a lot of uses that have standards within the Code. However, since it is in the shopping center, Mr. Cannon said the standard for the whole shopping center would apply. Mr. Cannon used a barber shop and a beauty shop as an example. He said the Code standard.~is one for 100 square feet. However, if~.the barber shop is located in the shopping center, the standard for the shopping center would apply. Mr. Cannon said it was simply im~ practical to require that everytime a' shopping center gets a new tenant, they recompute the number'of parking spaces they need. What Chairman Ryder was questioning was when they have different uses like a restaurant and theater 'in addition to the shops, would the requirement of each use be applied to get the total. Mr. Cannon said the exception was to' theaters. Mr. Annunziato interjected that suppose a shopping center requires one parking space for each 100 'square'feet and then the Shopping center was-~built, based on thosenumbers, if the use comes in which is more restrictive (like a beauty salon}, the beauty salon would still be permitted without changing the parking, Mr. Cannon said that was correct, and the only'exception to'that would be theaters Mr. Cannon added that the lan.guage in paragraph 10 was based on the findings of the Urban Land'Institute in their study, where they found the addition of restaurants o~r offices was not signifi- cant as long as it was not exceeding 20% of the total area of the shopping center. Their conclusion seemed to be that virtually all cases of the City could use that standard, Mr. Cannon advised. Mr. Annunziato wanted to. talk about paragraph 13', as he felt it was important for the Board~ to understand what the ~parag~aph was saying. Mr. Annunziato used 'church and~Sunday school as an example. He asked if that meant because it was a church and Sunday school there would have to be "X" number' of parking spaces and for the school "Y" number of spaces. Mr. Annunziato.commented that you know the demands will peak at different, times of the week in this instance. He explained that if quantitative evidence could be submitted to the City that the school by the~church will not be occupied and vice versa, What they would be saying is the parking will not have to duplicated. One requirement for parking would apply, Mr. Annunziato said he thought they would find more and more peak hour movements, and it did not make sense to pave more than they have to. By "quantitative evidence", Mr. Annunziato~said they were talking about a traffic impact statement done by a professional and - 11 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 submitted statistical data. Mr. Cannon said the definitions were consistent with ~e definitions that are in the Parking Lot Construction and Design Ordinances. However, since they were separate ordinances, the definitions also had to have some-changes. Chairman Ryder went back to page 11 and read: "1. Required parking spaces for all dwellings shall be located on the same lot as the dwelling to be served~." He asked why they just said dwellings and did not include commercial or whatever. Mr. Annunziato replied that they do provide~for park- ing within 200 feet of any kind of use. In the instance of residence, Mr. Annunziato explained they thought the resident should be benefited by having~the parkin~ closer. In the case of commercial uses, Mr. Annunziato said there may be somebody who would have a satellite parking lot, where he would require .his employees to park. Apparently, other uses had been added, Chair- man Ryder remarked. Mr. Annunziato said they tried to expand on the uses which were regulated because they constantly ha~e to make interpretations as to what it really is. CHAIRMAN RYDER OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING, He asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of the proposed parking, Samuel Scheiner, 528 S. E. 27th Terrace, Boynton Beach, Registered Architect, State of Florida, commented it was a very fine document and he knew they spent a lot of time, Mr. Scheiner was concerned about the handicapped persons, He ~eferred to page 3, where units were listed that had to provide park±ng.. Mr~ Scheiner pointed out that no mention was made that some parking sh©utd be provided for the handicapped. Definitely, on page-4, Mr. $cheiner said there should be provisions for parking for the handicapped. He read, "ChurcheS, Temples, and Other Places of Worship; Theaters, Auditoriums, Meeting Rooms, and Other Places of Assembly; and Clubs, Lodges, and Fraternal Organizations. Mr. Scheiner advised that any building financed by the Federal Government and the State Government has to provide minimum parking for the handi- capped~under Rehabilitation Act NB. 1973, Sect~ion 502. Mr. Scheiner said it was spelled out very clearly about the number of parking spaces for the handicapped. Mr. Scheiner said if they did not consider the handicapped; the~handicapped were being discriminated against. 'Handicapped cannot go to restaurants because there are no ramps. Doctors who serve the handicapped have-no facilities. Mr. Scheiner thought it was something the City should begin to recognize and spell out, Recreation and amusement for the handicapped are not even considered. Mr. Scheiner felt the handicapped were discriminated against. He thought they should be given spaces to park and ways to get in~; Chairman Ryder asked Mr. Scheiner if he could give the Board an - 12 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 outline of what he suggests so it could be considered the next time the Board meets. Mr. Scheiner replied he would like to and said he had been involved in a number of cases where he had to fight for the handicapped in some specific units. Mr. Scheiner repeated that his comment was that the ordinance was a fine job and he was only at the meeting'to help improve the ordinance. Mr. Annunziato thought if the Board addressed the uses individually, it would be cumbersome. He thought perhaps in the rules of construction of the ordinance, perhaps they could add paragraph "16" on page 2, rto provide parking spaces for the handicapped and require that strict conformance to the Handicap Codes be provided. Chairman Ryder asked if.walks and ramps had to accommodate that. Mr. Annunziato replied, "Yes." Mr. Annunziato advised this was not a construction code. He said~there was a difference in requiring a number of parking spaces and~requiring how the parking spaces are built. Mr. Annunziato said the ordinance did not say what the parking spaces are, although it is intended that they meet the Handicap Code. Chairman Ryder asked Mr. $cheiner to give the Board something to consider and mentioned the addition of a paragraph 16. Chairman Ryder felt it was important and thought the Board would agree it was something that had been overlooked. Chairman Ryder said this was the time to make sure provisions for the handicapped are provided. As no one else wished to speak, CHAIRMAN RYDER CLOSED THE PUBLIC ~EARING. Mr. Annunziato stressed that it was 'important that the Board addresses the number of required parking spaces for the number of uses. He suggested it could be done very quickly and wanted all the members to understand what was being said and what was required. Chairman Ryder told the people in the audience they were talking about proposed parking spaces for Boynton Beach, existing~<in Boynton Beach, (in each instance depending on the use), Palm Beach County, West Palm Beach, Delray Beach and Boca Raton. Mr. Annunziato reviewed the pages with the Board. On page 3, he asked the Board to note that on one bedroom efficiency apart- ments, after ten ~10) units, the parking would be reduced to one and one-half parking spaces per unit. Mrs. Bond noted: "7. Hospitals -- Two (2) parking spaces per bed", and commented that recently the hospital applied for that and was rejected. Mr. Annunz±ato said that was correct. Mrs. Bond asked what %hey would do in the meantime, Mr. Annunziato replied t-hat based on our current Code, the hospital has enough p~rking for the facilities they have~ and %~ey.e~en~have more parking than they need. Bas~e~Qn~he~r~pose~Code, Mr. Annunziato explained, they would not have enough parking. ~ Chairman Ryder interjeCted that the hospital has 350 beds, Mr. Annunziato said they would have to have 700 parking spaces. - 13 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Mr. Annunziato posed the question of whether that was enough to the Board. He stated that he was beginning to h~ve' some concerns him- self. Mrs. Bond commented that a lot of employees are involved as well, Mr. -Annunziato explained right now the hospital has problems. With an addit~ional fifty beds and an additional fifty parking spaces, more or less, right now, Mr. Annunziato said they would meet the present code. Mr. Annunziato repeated, "Is that in fact enough?" Mr. Annunziato said members of the City staff met with the hospital the other day, and they are-planning another remodeling project very soon. Chairman Ryder noted there was quite a dis- parity between the other cities. He called attention to West Palm Beach, who requires one parking space for six beds. Yet Boynton Beach says two parking spaces per bed. Mr. Annunziato pointed out some of the high points of the conserva- tion he had with the hospital's architects, Mr. Annunziato asked specifically if'-the increment in employees was directly related to beds, or do you reach a point where you could add beds without adding the same~increment of employees. Mr. Annunziato's thinking was there would be economies in scale, so to speak. The answer was there are not economies to scale. You have a specific number of employees that go with every bed, Mr. Annunziato advised, and it does not change over the number of beds. It remains about the sa. me~ Mr. Annunziato continued. Mr. AnnUnziato reiterated that with 700 parking spaces right now, the hospital would probably still have a problem, but they would meet the present Code. Chairman Ryder could not understand the requirement for West Palm Beach of one parking space for six beds, and Boynton Beach talking about two parking spaces per bed. Mr. Annunziato answered that they were different kinds of municipali- ties. Mr. Annunziato informed Mr. Linkous that the hospital has 350 beds right now. Based on this requirement, the hospital would be required to have 700 parking spaces, and they now have 648 park- ing spaces. Mr. AnnunziatO said the City would receive another proposal'for remodeling from the hospital in the very near future. It would not be increasing the beds, but would be increasing the house- keeping, Mr. Annunziato informed the Board. Chairman Ryder commented that possibly two parking spaces per bed was the way to go, because with 350 beds, they need 700 parking spaces. They have 640 parking spaces and have problems because they do not have enough parking spaces, Chairman Ryder observed. Chairman Ryder further said that was what the hospital told the Board. Mr. Annunziato informed. Mrs. Bond that all proposals include the employees. In'stead of counting employees, they are counting beds. Part of the problem with the existing Codes, Mr. Annunziato advised, was that things can Change without the municipality knowing it, such as the hiring of two dozen employees. For example, Mr. Annunziato said they know how many beds - Bethesda Hospital has. That is something you can count. - 14 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Mr. Linkous asked if one for three beds, plus one for three doctors, plus one for two employees would be delineated. Mr. Linkous noted the proposat~did not include that. Mr. Annunziato replied that they took all of that into account, and they do not have to count employees. Mr. Annunziato explained that anytime there is a Council making changes you do not know about, your regulations are not very versatile. Mr. Linkous did not believe you could make it too restrictive. Mr. Annunzlato's personal feelings were that it may not be restrictive enough. Mr. Annunziato had nothing else to point out on page 3 of the proposed ordinance. Pages 4 and 5 had nothing Mr. Annunziato wished to point out. On page 5, Chairman Ryder asked what control the City had over public schools. He thought they went their own way. Mr. Annunziato replied that they more or less do, but the City still regulates private schools. Chairman Ryder was interested in Restaurants on page 6 of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Annunziato pointed out that they are still counting seats on restaurants, but they were also saying that you have a minimum. Chairman Ryder asked if they were using the area. Mr. Annunziato said it was easy to count because you can compute the area of the building, which is the leaSt number of spaces they can have. Mr. Winter asked when they count parking spaces for restaurants, do they take into consideration an establishment that uses street parking as well. Mr. Annunziato answered 'that this was off street parking, Mr. Annunziato did not"th~ink you could, because it would be a discriminatory ordinance since not all commercial properties are benefited equally by on street parking. There were no questions and no discussion regarding pages 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Mr. Annunziato commented that page 12 was somewhat interesting, He said they had a problem where two doctors share an office and one doctor is there Nondays and Wednesdays and the other doctor is there Thursdays and .Fridays. Because two physicians would be licensed at that location, the ordinance would require twelve parking spaces, which is not practical. In this instance, Mr. Annunziato advised it should be based on the number of square feet, Chairman Ryder noted it contrasted with six per doctor., which the City presently has. He noted Palm Beach County had one for 2'00 square feet. Chairman Ryder asked Mr. Annunziato what they' intend to-provide for the upcoming municipal golf course.with regard to parking. asked if it would be eight per hole. Mr. Annunziato replied it would be eight per hole. He There was discussion about warehouses and the contrast between one parking space per 800 square feet of gross floor area for Boynton Beach and 10,000 for Palm Beach County, which Mr. Linkous pointed out. - 15 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Garry Winter asked if it would be wise to incorporate something into the propsoed ordinance to cover anything that was not taken into consideration. Mr. Annunziato referred the Board to paragraph 12, page 2, of the ordinance, and read: Where a use is not listed below, parking space requirements shall be determined by 'the City Council~ after review and recoranendation by the Planning and Zoning Board." Mrs. Bond moved, seconded by Mr.. Linkous, that Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment concerning Sect~ion 11, Subsection H, P~ovision of Off-Street Parking Spaces, be TABLED. The motion carried 7-0. CHAIRMAN RYDER CALLED A FIVE MINUTE RECESS AT 9:05 P, M. SUBDIVISIONS Master Plan Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: So. Palm Beach Commerce Park Michael B. Schorah & Assoc., Inc. Industrial.Associates High Ridge R. @ Miner Rd~ extended.SE corner 24 lots, Industrial Subdivision Chairman Ryder informed the Board that this matter had been before them previously, He said the Board might recall that what is involved is extending the orange grove to match with 22nd Avenue. Mr. Annunziato wanted to make two points concerning the plan. He stated that one concerned the master plan and the second concerned the right-of-way for High Ridge Road. Mr. Annunziato informed the Board this was an application for what is now titl.ed "South Palm Beach Commerce Park"~ He asked the Board to recall that the name previously was North BoYnton Industrial Park. The name was i~gonflict with existing subdivisions, and the applicant was requested to change their name, which is acceptable. Mr. Annunzia%o said the Board would recall that the subdivision is located in the proximity of the intersectiOn of High Ridge Road and Miner Road extended east. The property does not front~on High Ridge but is approximately 300 feet east of High Ridge ROad. The property is adjacent to Miner Road, Mr. Annunziato continued. Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that the property would be served by a public utility system consisting of a gravity sewer system which will be located in the streets, which will then go through easements to a proposed lift station. The lift station will serve not only this property but also the properties to the north and ~ the properties ~es~-.~f'High Ridge Road. Conce'rning water, Mr, Annunziato advised that the applicant proposed to connect on to the existing six inch water main which parallels the northern property line and provide a loop of water delivery - 16 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 system of eight inch water lines and fire hydrants serving all of the lots. Mr. Annunzia%o further advised that the streets are proposed to be made public and will be constructed to the collector road standard as far as construction is concerned. Mr. Annunziato said that meant instead of having 22 feet, the road would be constructed with~24-feet of pavement. Mr. Annunziato informed the Board the drainage will be'into a re- defined retention area, which will be constructed on the southeast portion of the property. Mr. Annunziato said the application was reviewed by the South FlOrida Water Management District. Mr. Annunziato received a telephone call yesterday (February 8~, and the South Florida Water Manage- ment District found there was no drainage related problem associated with the project, but the applicant will have to secure modification to the surface water management permit which was issued to construct the facility. Chairman Ryder remarked that the new retention area should be in before they build on that facility. Mr. Annunziato, thought it would grow, Mr. Annunziato further informed the Board that a traffic statement was prepapred in connection with the proposal and basically pro- vided for the requirements listed in Tom Clark, City Engineer's memo. Mr. Annunziato explained that the subdivision did not generate sufficient trips per day to require a full-blown traffic impact statement. Failure to generate that number of trips results and requires that the applicant submit an intersection analysis, This was done; and Mr. Annunziato advised'the analysis was prepared by Ken S. Rogers, Professional Engineer~ 6104 Water- view CirCle, Palm Springs, Florida 33461. Mr. Rogers found the following: "1. High Ridge Road should be constructed as a two-lane roadway from its present terminus Southerly to NW 22nd Avenue. 2. A left turn lane on N, W, 22nd Avenue West approach at the intern section of High Ridge Road should be constructed, 3. A left turn lane on High Ridge Road North approach to the inter- section with the development's entrance road should be constructed. At the intersection of High Ridge Road and Hypoluxo Road, construct a left turn lane .on Hypoluxo Road East approach and a left turn lane on High Ridge Road South approach, 5. The intersection of Hypoluxo Road and High Ridge Road should be signalized when warranted." Mr. Rogers further noted that excessive delays are presently being experienced at the intersection of High Ridge Road and Hypoluxo Road and that the recommended improvements to that intersection are needed for the existing traffic. - 17 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BQARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Mr, Annunziato said the request went to the Technical Review Board and comes to the Planning and Zoning Board with the follow- ing comments: Engineering Dept. "1. Tom Clark, City Engineer Approval should be subject to~ the traffic statement by K. S. Rogers dated January 19, 1982," (Comments above) The pro-rata share for a traffic signal should be a cc~nitment by the developer. Perry A. Cessna, Director of Utilities: "1, A signed and sealed'boundary survey is required. Where easements are shown that encumber property, the book and page number, as recorded, should be shown." The water line should be extended westward on the east/ west interior road to their west property-line and stubbed for future connection to the future 16" line on High Ridge Road. e The lift station site is satisfact~rybut after consultation with the developers to the nor%h, it maybe required to be changed to eliminate a multitude of lift station sites in this area." Mr. Annunziato advised the aPplicantis meeting with the property owners in the area. e A physical examination of this piece of property with many holes in it from previous diggings would indicate to me that the applicant should be allowed to excavate to provide a reasonably uniform piece of property for an industrial site." Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that the excava- tion issue was not a Part of the Board's review but will finally be decided by the City Council, based on the recommendations from the Technical Review 'Board. Mr. Annunziato presented a map prepared by Michael B. Schorah, Michael B, Schorah & Associates, Inc., Suite 205, 1850 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach., Florida 33406% Mr. Annunziato reminded elder members of the Board 'that a problem with the property had been the inability of the City to serve the property adequately with emergency vehicles. Because it is a subdivision, Mr. Annunziato said the Technical Review Board has required that High Ridge Road be constructed 'to tie the development into the working functions of the city. Some of the problems they had concerned the fact that High Ridge Road does not exist as a publicly dedicated rig. bt-of-way'between the one section line in Section 16 and N. W. 22nd Avenue. In addition to the problem of building the road, the issue of the problems of rights-of-way had to be addressed. Almost all of the - 18 - MINUTES ~ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 properties that abut High Ridge Road 'are not a part of the applica- tion but have shown an interest in becoming a part of the right-of- way dedication based on someone else building the road, Mr. Annunziato advised. Mr. Annunziato continued by saying the NE-l/4 of' the proposed right- of-way is encumbered by an easement to ~he current owners from the prior owners through a series of land sales. Mr. Annunziato was told that there are also quit-claim deeds covering the dedication of that portion of the right-of-way to the developers waiting in escrow, Mr. Annunziato said there are quit-claim easements to the current owners providing for a sixty foot extension of the yet unnamed east/west right-of-way, which provides the public access link to the proposed subdivision. Mr. Annunziato told the Board the northwest quarter of the property is owned by a TrusteeShip, of which Mike Schorah is a representative. Mr. Annunziato had a letter indicating their willingness to dedicate that portion of-the right-Of-way. An interesting feature of this is that that portion is not in the City of Boynton Beach, Mr. Annunziato advised. That part of the r±ght-of-way is in the County, Lying to the southeast corner and~southwest corner are two corpora- tions, Mr. Annunziato advised. One is Ri~ec~ on the East, and the Atlantic Richfield on the West. Mr% Annunziato further advised that both companies are associated with the ~l~COfamilY~ of corporations. Mr. Annunziato had a letter stating their willingness to dedicate the right-of-way. Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that this forms the 80 foot corridor the City had been waiting for so long. In connection with the development of the subdivision, it was the City's whole intention that High Ridge Road be developed. Chairman Ryder noted that it was complex~ As far as development-of that portion of the City is concerned, Mr. Annunziato pointed out to the Board that this link was very important for the City staff to provide the kind of services they should have. In connection with 22nd Avenue, Mr. Linkous felt it would be advantageous. Mr. Annunziato advised that the staff recommended that the master plan be approved, subject to' staff comments. Michael B. Schorah, Engineer, representing IndUstri~. Associates, Owner, corrected Mr. Annunziato by saying it was a 16 inch water main not a six inch on Miner Road, which was installed by the City. Mr. Schorah wished to comment on the traffic study which was done on their request, following Mr~ Annunziato's request for a capacity analysis of the intersection. Mr. Schorah advised another complex situation developed with the property to the north. Mr. Schorah said they will be appearing before the Board with-an annexation~ He advised it was sixty acres north of Miner Road immsdiately north of them, and on the easterly side of High Ridge, between High Ridge, and north of Miner Road. That was one of the reasons, Mr. Schorah said, they located the pumping - 19 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 station at the request of the City's Utility Department. Mr. Schorah said Perry Cessna, Utilities Director, made a comment about a better location. Mr. Annunziato said they are meeting tomorrow morning (February 10) with the property owners to the north to discuss what their requirements might be in regards to sewage collection and the joint use of a common pump station, which would be to the benefit of the City. Chairman Ryder asked if~the sewer on Miner Road was a gravity sewer, Mr. Schorah replied that it was a forced main, so they have to build a pump station. Hopefully, Mr. Schorah sai~ it will be a joint venture in constructing the pumping station there to serve more than their property. Mr. Schorah informed the Board that the complexity he was talking about with regard to-the traffic is that certain commitments will be required by the development to the north, who has a consider- ably much larger piece of property than they have. Mr. Schorah thought when the other developer becomes active, traffic gener- ation will be far greater than Mr. Rogers' report now shows. Mr. Schorah thought the commitment by his client to build High Ridge Road in combination with the developer to the north is an agreement between the two developers. However, Mr.. Schorah pointed out, if the developer to the north does not go ahead, his client has agreed to complete High Ridge Road. Mr. $chorah said what requirements of the C they would like to rc ments at the northend Hypoluxo~ and sit dow direction the develo~ Schorah stated that t High Ridge Road is a ing the turn laneS, 'a Mr. Schorah expressed and discuss what is g Ryder asked Mr. Schor would not have consid believed they would c Mrs. Bond asked if th commercial developmen industrial and partia Mr. Annunziato addres staff had no objectio %hey would like to do is acknowledge the ity Engineer and the traff~ic statement., but serve the opportUnity to discuss the improve- (where they make the connection with n and discuss it with them and see what er to the north is going to take. Mr. hey felt their contribution in constructing tremendou's expense (frc~Miner Road, includ- nd the improv~entSto N. W. 22nd). that they would like to sit down with staff oing to happen at the northend. Chairman ah if he thought the developers to the north ered develOping the area'. Mr. Schorah ontinue, regardless of whether they went ahead. e developer to-the north would be going into t. Mr. $chorah replied it would be partially lly residential on the sixty acres. sed Mr. Schorah's comments by advising that ns to a private, party agreement to construct the improvements. Besause they are dealing with individual developers, Mr. Annunziato advised it had to be addressed as if it were a vacuum with respect to the others. It was Mr. Annunziato's impression tha~t the same things would be required of both developers. Mr. $chorah recognized that and also recognized that if the developer to the north does not go any further, than he is today, the total commitment of constructing High Ridge Road-will be quite extensive without going to the north. Mr, Schorah said they feel their impact is minimal compared to what the impact would be when - 20 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 the other developer comes in. Chairman Ryder pointed out that the City was not confronted with the request from the other developer at this time. He added that all too often, the City finds that nothing happens. Mr. Schorah thought the City would gain tremendously from the construc- tion of High Ridge Road. Chairman Ryder agreed, but he could not see that it would pose additional problems from the standpoint of traffic. · Mr. Schorah advised that the developer to the north privately agreed that he would be responsible for some of the improvements in the northend, Chairman Ryder found Mr. Rogers' figures very interesting, Mr. Annunziato pointed out that Mr. Rogers~ analysis indicated that even without the property to the north developing, there will still be intersectional problems with High Ridge Road and Hypoluxo. For the project to be adequately served, Mr. Annunziato said independent of what happens to the north, it is an improvement that directly relates to this subdivision. Mr. Annunziato did not think there was room for discussion, Chairman Ryder pointed out these were things that had to be done now. Mr. Schorah commented that there was'a l±mit to'what one small industrial development can stand. He said if~the City was going to break the bank by imposing improvements their way and fOrce him not to go ahead, then the City would not get High Ridge Road. Mr. Annunzlato admitted that was true, but suspected the property to the north will develop and will be annexed, as Mr. Schorah had given every indication. Mr. Annun'ziato thought the problems w.ould work themselves out, but he felt it would be remiss on the p~rt of the staff to address the issue without addressing the intersection of Hypoluxo and High Ridge Road. Chairman RYder asked if they knew what the current zoning was in the County for that area. Mr. Annunziato said it was primarily residential. Mr. Annunziato asked if they meant the property to the north. Chairman Ryder replied the property to the north. Mrs. Bond asked if the developer wanted to change the zoning there. Mr. Schorah said, "Yes, he dOes. He wants to become annexed to the City, change the zoning and become annexed." Chairman Ryder remarked tha:t right now Mr. Schorah~'s client was the one the Board had ~o worry about, and no one else. Mr. Linkous wondered if the developer to the north was playing a waiting game. Mr~ Schorah said he was going ahead, but his problem was annexation and zoning, so it would take longer than their development. Mr. Schorah felt their commitment to spend $150,000.00 plus on building High Ridge Road for the City, if the developer to the north does not go ahead. Mr. Schorah stressed he 'was offering the opportunity to serve the area within ~he City limits without going up 1-95 and coming back south along High Ridge to serve ~them police and fire. Mr. Schorah repeated that they felt the expense imposed on them, and he felt it was quite substan- tial for a 23 acre industrial subdivision. - 21 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING 'BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Mr. Linkous asked Mr. Schorah if the quit~claim deeds had any bear- ing on the matter whatsoever. He wondered if the deeds would be enhanced in any way, Mr. Schorah replied that the properties would be enhanced, but they are giving the right-of-ways with the understanding they will have no financial responsibilities, and it is specifically spelled out. Mr. Schorah told the Board they agree'with everything Perry Cessna, Director of Utilities, said. They w±ll~have no problem extending the water main to the west property line for future connections to the city system. They also had no objections to working with Mr. Perry Cessna on the 'location of the pumping station because they felt that was to everyone's advantage. Mr, Linkous asked if it would be appropriate to rough grade in lieu of Paving, to give some relief ~to the developer. Chairman Ryder thought the Board should think in terms~of permanent develop- ment. Mr. Annunziato added that letters of commitment indicate that the City will not accept a shell rock road. If there will only be a shell rock.road, there will be no agreement with the developers, Mr. Annunziato advised, Mr, Schorah thanked. Mr. Linkous for his effort but said it had been agreed to pave the road. Mr. Hester moved that the Plan be approved, subject to staff commenss. Mr. Wandelt seconded the motion, and ~he motion carried 7-0. Project Name: Agent: Owner: 'Location: Description: Sky Lake Modification Rick Rossi Hylib, Inc. Old Boynton Rd. @~E-4 Canal, NE corner Modify approved Master Plan to accommodate ex- panded rights-of-way and larger lake Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that this also had complications. He advised that the request was a request to modify Phases 2 and 3 of the proposed Sky Lake Subdivision. What required the issue to come before the Board for master plan modification was the fact the application was approved un~er the old subdivision .regulations. When the City made the shift to the new regulations, a lot of things happened concerning recreation and park dedications and certain street widths, Mr. Annunziato advised. The applicant found there was a requirement; and he, in fact, expanded the size of Lake Libby. Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that he did this by removing eleven lot's from the subdivision. Mr. Annunziato pointed to the currently platted Phase 1, which was all completed except for street lights. Mr. Annunziato recalled there was a variance secured from the City council to construct within fifty foot rights-of-way, and they paid the Recreation and Parks dedication fee. Mr. Annunziato said it was done by Hylib, Inc. - 22 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Mr. Annunziato further informed the Board that Hylib, Inc. is also the developer of the remainder of the property. Hylib is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Riteco, Mr. Annunziato advised. Mr. Annunziato read 'the as follows: "1. "2. Street R/W from 50' t¢ Mr. Annunziato sai( was required right.~ streets (for examp~ isions from'the Master Plan of Sky Lake, 60' wide." that in'addition, where the applicant i-of-way on existing~ non-conforming .e 9th Avenue~, that'add~tional right- of-way dedication ~ad to be accomplished in this proposal, Mrl Ann~nziato' told Chairman Ryder it brings the streets to consistent half sections~'' A~ half. section adjacent to.the property would,now be thirty feet~ Enlarged lake frc~3.~0 AC. to 6.83 AC. Reduced Lots frc~I95 to'184. Recreation areachangE Mr. Annunziato exp~ reduced in size to was platted, the dc required 2.5 acres advised that the d~ result of the ded±( in configurationas shown~" .ained that 'the recreation area was 2.5 acres, He stated that Phase 1 ~veloper dedicated more than the to the association. ~r. Annunzia~o ~veloper is now reducing that, as a ~ation of the streets~ "5. Provided increase ~in F/W width N. W. 9th ~ve, frc~ 10' to 15' 6. Overall density decr~se frc~'3.45 D2U./AC, tO'3~25 D.U./AC. 7. Utilities remain unaffected by revision." Mr. Annunziato said the recuest was reviewed by staff and comes to the Board with a positi{~e recommendation, subject to the following: Engineering Dept. "1. The required right-of-way fcr N. W. l~th Avenue must be obtained. A copy of the recorded deed should be. subm/tt~ to the City. Mr. Ann~nziato told the Board there is a small portion of right-of-way adjacent to the propert5' which would be encumbered by future N. W. 12th Avenue, which has not been secured by the ~pplicant. ~. Current latting requirements should apply to areas not yet U latted." Recreation Dept. See Memo attached hereto~ and made a part hereof, With regard to the ~emorandum from the Recreation Department, Chairman Ryder asked if the $18,000.00 was agreed upon way back. Mr. Annunziato replied it is being utilized now, and when they are platted, they will have to submit a new land value. They had to have some way to'address the dollars that were already given to the City. Enrico ("Rick") Rossi, Professional Engineer, Rossi and Malavasi - 23 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Engineers, Inc., Consulting Engineers, ForUm III, Suite '407, 1675 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401, appeared before the Board to represent the applicant. Chairman Ryder asked Mr. Rossi if they needed fill, Mr. Rossi replied they did need the fill. AS a result of the revisions, Mr. Rossi told the Board they could see a decreasing density in open- ing up the plan. The reasons were (1) they wanted %o stick to the 60 feet right-of-ways instead of the fifty, because the fifty would require a lot of curbs; and (2) they needed the dirt. Chairman Ryder asked how deep theY.were going, Mr. Rossi answered twenty'feet. Mr. Rossi continued by'saying the original developer wanted lots (which were.the eleven they gave up), with the idea of hauling a lot of dirt in from outside Sources. Economically, Mr. Rossi said that would not work out, so they provided a larger lake for the fill. Mr. Rossi informed the Board that they were in full agreement with what the City had outlined with the exception of one thing. They would like to eliminate the requirement that was imposed upon them to put a jogging path around the lake. Instead, Mr. Rossi said they would like to do the following: They would, like to put a jogging path around the recreation area. Although they are only commited to 2.5 acres, Mr. Rossi advised that their calculations show that they could probably give another 15/100ths of an acre more and go to about 2.65 acres for the recreation area. Mr. Rossi stated they would like to confine the jogging path for about 1100 feet that circumscribes the recreation area. Mr, Rossi explained the obvious reason for the above is that some- one buying a house along the recreation area expects recreation activities in his back yard. Someone'bUying a lot along the lake for privacy woUld probably feel it is an intrusion by the public to have joggers going by. Chairman Ryder asked if that would be common area. Mr. Rossi replied that the way the plat reads, when they dedicate the lake, it will go to the property owners' association for operation and maintenance, Mr, Rossi said privacy, security, and apprehension would be the reason for them to change the jogging area, Mr. Rossi called attention to Leisureville. Mrs. Bond asked if it would be a condominium type of development. Mr. Rossi answered that it would be a single family. Mrs. Bond asked if the lots along the recreation area would be smaller. Mr. Rossi said they were all the same size, and they all meet the requirements of the zoning district. Mr. Linkous asked if the jogging area was the periphery of the lake. Mr. Annunziato told the Board Mr. Rossi was objecting to the jogging path being constructed around the lake. Mr. Annunizato added that in his discussions with Mr. Charles Frederick, Recreation and Parks Director, they felt the lake was an attribute of vita courses. Mr. Annunziato thought the lake had something to do with it and would make it function. Julian Bryan, Planning Consultant, interceded to say he jogs and is very much involved in physical fitness. Mr. Bryan commented - 24 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZQNING BQA~D FEBRUARY R, 1982 that the applicant would-have a ser±Ous problem putting a jogging path around a lake. Another reason that no one pointed out was that the lake banks are sloped, of necessity, for a design point of view, Mr. Bryan continued. Mr. Bryan advised that if the path was not absolutely flat, it'would~ be impossible to run on it, as it would do irreparable'~damage to a jogger's'legs and ankles. Mr. Bryan further said there is a po±hr abOut stations. A jogger runs a certain distance and then does another exercise. Chairman Ryder remarked that people who live along lakes do consider it as private property. Arnold E. Thompson, 1307~ N. W~. 8th Court, Laurel Hills, Boynton Beach, appeared on behalf of the homeowners of Laurel Hills, Glen Arbor, and ~ordon Park, whieh is property east of the development. Mr. Thompson questioned Mr. Rossi as to what his plans were on developing the balance of the property and whether he planned on removing all of the trees and overgrowth to the east and along the area of homes in Laurel Hills. Mr. Thompson addressed a question to Mr. Annu~nziato or Mr.'Rossi regarding N. W. 9th Street. Mr. Thompson wanted to know how the road would be developed and whether it woutd be a cost to the existing residents or to %he City because, at present, the road would be in the backyard of the existing homes. Sometime ago it was discussed, and the residents had no objection to having the road there because of .the depth of the lots in Laurel Hills. It was far enough from the homes to not create a problem, Mr. Thompson advised. Mr. Thompson informed the Board that-the residents adjacent to the development were c©ncsrned about whether they would be assessed any costs for the construction of the road. Concerning N. W. 9th Street, Mr. Annunziato informed Mr. Thompson the street would be developed by Hylib, Inc. at no cost to the residents. Mr. Annunziato added that the street would serve both subdivisions. Mr, Thompson asked if the additional five feet that the applicant gave ma~e the totat~ easement for the road right-of-way a .~sixty foot right-of~.way or if it would be short on the part adjacent to the existing homes. Mr. Rossi replied that~they gave thirty feet from their side. They gave 15 and an-additional five, Mr. Rossi further said. The only thing Mr. Thompson knew of was a right-of'way for pressure lines. Mr. Rossi told Mrs. Thompson that like any other subdivision, there are certain places like building areas and road areas where trees cannot be' put in, and it is hard to do anything about front yards. However, Mr. Rossi thoUght it behooved-the developer to preserve the trees where there are a lot of them of substantial size. Mr. Rossi guessed the answer to the question was they would use discretion on where and how trees could be saved, Mr. Annunziato agreed with Chairman Ryder that the trees would come under the new Tree Ordinance. - 25 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 C0n~erning the width of N. W. 9th Street, Mr. Annunziato did not recall exactly but he thought because there was 30 feet existing there, the initial master plan provided for a dedication of 20 feet, providing for a fifty foot'right-of-way. Mr. Annunziato advised that this proposal would provide for an additional ten feet. Instead of dedicating 20 feet, it would be 30 feet, to make it a 60 foot. right-of-way, Mr. Annunziato ~continued. Mr. Annunziato told Mr. Thompson if the applicant dedicated 30 feet, there exists 30 feet, so that would be the 60 feet right-of-way. Regarding the trees, Mr. Thompson said the main'concern of the residents in the area was not the fact that the trees would not be saved (because most of them were not worth saving as they were mostly scrub pine). The problem was that in the 1st Phase, it is all clear, and when the wind blows, the sand blows, Mr. Thompson was concerned that when the last portion is developed, which was originally Phase 3 (which is where the majority of the trees are and which is adjacent to the homes), what~ standards W~ld they have to put up with. Mr. Thompson was glad to see the density was lowered. ~Mr. Thompson said if the entire plot is developed and trees are torn down, he would like to see a temporary fence so that sand would not be blown into the area. .Mr. Thompson called attention to the residents of Laurel Hills, who~are already~ experiencing the problem, and it is a shame it was not addressed when the new industrial park is being developed. Mr. Thompson. had a lot of complaints about sand blowing into the homes. He said it was a tremendous problem trying to keep the houses clean. Mr. Thompson thought they would expe/~ the prob~lem even more because this development Will be to the west. Mr.' ThOmpson said if that could be considered, it would be appreciated, as they would like to be good neighborS. Mr. Thompson said ~the homeowners were interested in the development and would be glad to work with them on anything that would help. Chairman Ryder commented that usually all requirements of staff must be adhered to, ~and he mentioned the jogging' path, Mr. Annunziato thought the Board should reach an'understanding of what they think should be constructed with regard to the jogging path. He told the Board to consider whether they.felt the jogging path for the recreation area plus the additional .15 acres is sufficient to counteract the loss of approximately 4/10ths of an acre of property which is now private recreation. Mr. Rossi said his calculations were .31. Mr, Wandelt did not think the jogging path should be on the lake, Chairman Ryder suggested that the motion include the alternate jogging path be recommended and the acreage be included, Mr~ Wandelt also thought what Mr. Thompson said about the sand fence had a lot of merit, so he thought that too should be included. Mr. Annunziato advised that the applicant is now s~bject to a new excavation and fill regulation before any development can occur. One thing required, as a part of that regulation, is a plan for mitigation of nuisances. Chairman Ryder noted it would - 26 - MINUTES - PLANNtNG AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 also come under the Tree Ordinance. Mr. Linkous moved to approve the master plan, subject to staff comments, deleting that portion which is addressed about the jogging path, and recommend that the jogging path be located around the recreation area; and al'so that a~n additional .15 acres be added to the recreation area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wandelt, and the motion carried 7-0. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Dos Lagos (PUD) Modification Fred Roth, Project Manager The Satter Companies Congress Ave. between LWDD Canals 20-21 - east side Clarification of building setbacks in'single family area. Mr. Annunziato explained to the Board that at the time of the approval of the modified master Plan, no mention was made as to the setback requirements for the single family area. Mr. Annunziato thought a lot of them assumed that because the lots met the R-lA design criteria, the setbacks would be of that mode. Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that Mr. Roth, representing The Satter Companies, was about to submit plan~s for single family homes and found the houses they had planned had a setback of only 15 feet in the rear. They found that was not an acceptable criteria, based on the Code. Because it was-a PUD, the applicant sought a modification of the master plan~' To that extent, a letter was submitted to Mr. Annunziato, to.be fo~rwarded to the City Council, explaining what the extent of the modification was. The request was reviewed by the City Council, but they did make a finding of no substantial change, Mr. Annunziato advised. Because it was a PUD, Mr. Annunziato informed the Board, the-'modification would have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Board follow- ing the Council's finding of no substantial change, Therefore, Mr. Annunziato said the request comes to the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Annunziato asked Mr. Fred Roth, Project Manager, to show some displays and recommended to .the Board that the plan. be approved. Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that there were two memos from Edgar E. Howell, Building Official. The first one said he felt "this is a substantial change" but, as'a staff member, he could not recommend that it be approved unless and until it had been reviewed by the City Council and the City Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. AnnunZiato said the implication of the words, "substantial change", was taken out of context. In Mr. Howell's second memo, he stated he understands the procedure for master plan modification; therefore, he has no objections to the site plan modifications. Mr. Linkous observed that Mr. Annunziato mentioned various modi- fications throughout the PUD. Mr. Linkous asked if there were a - 27 - MINUTES ~ PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD February 9, 1982 lot of variances in PUDs. Mr. Annunziato replied, "Yes," Mr. Annunziato explained that the villas of HuntersRun sit on plats where the rear of the building may be only five or ten'feet from the rear of the property l±ne. However, adjacent to the property line is the golf course .or fairway, which would not conflict with the City ordinance. Chairman Ryder remarked that in a PUD, you generally wind up with more open space and, more important than anything else, there is no setback criteria at the present time for a PUD. Chairman Ryder informed the Board that that was the fact before them; there is no existing criteria. He said the letter indicated what they propose for the various units. Chairman Ryder saw no problem with going ahead. Mr. Linkous noted that the'only Staff comment ~had been rescinded, Mr.. Annunziato pointed out that it was a misunderstanding. Mr. Linkous moved, seconded by Mr. Hester, to approve the master plan with modifications, as presented. Motion carried 7-0. SITE PLANS Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: City of Boynton Beach - 30 Acre Park Carmen S. Annunziato, City Planner City of Boyn%on Beach SW corner; Congress A~e. @ Charter Drive Phase I - to include 8 tennis courts, plus pro shop and locker rooms Chairman Ryder overheard someone say, ".If they don't have something up by October, it's just too bad." Chairman Ryder asked Mr. Annunziato if that was correct. Mr. AnnUnziato replied that if they did' n6~ have a building up by October, the City would lose that twenty acres. Tim Cannon showed the first phase of the development of the park. Mr. Cannon said the site will be occupied by eight tennis courts, a pro shop, rest rooms, parking for forty cars, a picnic area, and bleachers (which are optional) located next to lighted tennis courts. Mr. Cannon pointed to the access road, lighted sign, walkways, and~optional walkway. He advised that the entire site was irrigated and there is irrigation for the clay courts, which must be watered several times a day. Chairman Ryder asked if access was from Congress or,Charter 'Drive. Mr. Cannon replied access was from Charter Drive. Mr. Cannon told the Board the plan comes with a positive recommenda- tion, subject to staff comments, as follows: - 28 ~- MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Engineering Dept. "1. It is recc~anended that the first hour of a three year steam be contained .on site. Calculations will be required based on percolation tests. 2. A topographical map should be submitted. 3. Pavement dimensions and elevations should be added to the plans along with.details for road and parking lot construction. 4. Water Management approval will be required for storm drainage. 5. County approval will be required for-connections to the County storm sewers." Energy Coordinator: "Reconmend High Pressure Sodium Vapor or Metal./Halide Lighting." Mr. Wandelt moved to accept the site plan, subject to staff comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Zive. Chairman Ryder questioned Mr. Annunziato regarding the memorandum to him from Charles Frederick, Recreation and Parks Director, dated February 1, 1982. The memo stated, "We are not in a position." Chairman Ryder wondered if it should state, "We are not in opposition." Members of the Board thought so. MOtion carried 7-0. Project Name: Agent: Owner: Location: Description: Meadows 300 (PUD) - Tr.act "A" Julian Bryan C&H Properties Meadows Blvd. @ Congress Avenue, SW corner 124 Town Houses, plus R~creational Facilities Tim Cannon, Assistant City Planner, presented the site plan, and said it came with a positive recommendation, subject to staff comments. Mr. Cannon informed the Board that the site plan occupies 15.8 acres in the S. E. corner of the Meadows 300 PUD. Mr. Cannon said Tract A would contain 31 fourplexes f~r a total of 124 units, which would be two story, two bedroom units. Each unit would have an outside patio. Mr. Cannon told the Board that only the area covered by the building site and the patios would be owned by the occupants. The remainder of the site would be owned and maintained by a condominium association.. Mr. Cannon said the development is shielded from Congress Avenue by brim and also plantings along the brim. There will be a bike path winding along the brim, Mr. Cannon continued, by saying the open space would provide one tree for every 1500 square feet, required by the Landscaping Code. Access Would be by means of a 22 foot private drive looping around the site, coming out to Meadows Boulevard. An additional ten feet of right-of-way would be dedi- cated to Congress Avenue. Mr..Cannon pointed out a pool. Mr. Cannon read the staff comments, as follows: - 29 - MINUTES - PLANNING ~AND ZONING BOARD ~EB~UARY 9, 1982 Building Dept. "1, Board of Health permit required. 2. County turn-out perm~ required. 3. Landscape plan ~ does not meet the city' s Landscape Ordinance, ~81-22, as per the following section: Section 7A~35 E G J K (1) 4. Dimension site plan between all buildings & roadways. 5. Show proposed finish floor elevation. Flood zone is A-5; requires eleven foot (11') above sea level," With regard to No. 3, the Landscape plan, Mr. Cannon advised the Board that the applicant submitted a new sheet for the landscaping plan, but the Community Appearance Board will take care of that. Engineering Dept. "The locations for the street signs and traffic control signs should be added." Public Works Dept. "Notify Public Works prior to constructing dumpster pads." City Planner: "(1) (2) Add 4 parking spaces in lot serving Bldgs~ 27, 28, and 29. Parking dimensions as per site plan; not plat." Mr. Annunziato interrupted to inform the Board that this is Tract A of the C & H Plat No. 1, in which all rights-of-way have been dedicated, all of the utilities are bonded and under construc- tion, and all of the drainage is bonded and properly located. As far as Meadows is concerned, Mr. Annunziato advised they had been dedicated, Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that Meadows is the road directly west of Boynton Lakes Boulevard. You do not see it on the ground, but it has been platted and bonded and will probably be constructed within the next four or five days, Mr. Annunziato said. Boynton Lakes is across the street and it will be a four way intersection, Mr. Annunziato added. Julian Bryan, Planning Consultant, representing C & H Properties, Owner, informed the Board that they had just a few months ago reviewed and approved a master plan wherein they had added two additional parking facilities which were in addition to the facilities approved back in 1978. Mr. Bryan advised Chairman Ryder that each of those would contain a clubhouse and tennis courts. Mr. Bryan showed one of them in his location sketch, which was adjacent to the lake, and said it 'would be developed in conjunction with Phase 1-. He said Phase 1, Meadows 300 Tract includes 4 tracts: Tract A, before the Board- tonight; Tract B, which the Board will probably see in several weeks, and Tracts C and D, which are single family detached residences. Chairman Ryder asked what the nature of oWnership of Tract A was. Mr. Bryan said it was, in essence, a horizontal condominium. Mr. Bryan said the footprint was fee simple, but all of the land will be owned in common. In other words, Mr. Bryan said there will be 124 tracts of land owned by 124 individuals~ Then all of the land will be owned in common by their association. - 30 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Mrs. Bond asked if people would have to cross the road to get to the recreation area. Mr. Bryan said they would have their own internal recreational facility but to use the major community facility, about half of them would have to cross-the road. Mr. Wandelt asked what would, be at the pool area. Mr. Bryan replied, "Just the pool and necessary restroom facilities, pool equipment room and storage." Mrs. Bond wondered if there would be parking around the pool. Mr. Bryant explained that the parking to serve the pool was located at a place he pointed to'on the plan. That was one thing he wanted to address Mr. An~rnziat0~s comments about. Mr.' Bryan showed on the plan where they showed additional pa. rk- lng to ser-ve the pool area with maintenance vehicles and the like'. It was a major consideration in the preparation of the site plan. Mr, Bryan referred to many developments~being so fragmented, you always have to cross a parking lot to get to the common area or where the ~kid$ play. Mr. Bryan said the whole idea of the concept is that every building can get out into the open space, even in the corner, so there will be no problem with crossing streets. The idea was that the necessity for parking there would be substantially diminished because everyone coUld walk up the green belt to the recreation facility. Mr. Bryan said they had four additional spaces, He pointed to where Mr. Annunziato was asking for four more. Mr. Bryan stated they already eXceed the Code by four. He showed once parking lot that served one building and a portion of anothsr b~ilding. Mr. Bryan informed Mr. Annunziato he ~had no objection tO'adding the four spaces. Mr. Annunziato told the Board they do not have requirements for parking at a swimm±ng pool. Mr. Ann~nziato further guessed that you would not need parking for the sw±mmlng pool, based on its location. Mr. Annunziato said he was not asking for any more parking than is required. Mr. Annunziato said if Mr. Bryan has four parking spaces which serve that interior building, he did not think any additional parking was needed, unless they wanted to provide it. Mr. Bryan wanted to add two spaces. In this instance, Mr. Annunziato wanted that portion of his comments to be disregarded. He said if the developer wanted to add more parking, that was fine. Mr. Bryan wanted to suggest that rather than showing the building location as a relationship between each building, that they continue to utilize the method shown on the pla%. In a configuration such as that, Where th~ building is t~urned-every which way, Mr. Bryan said the Board could imagine what the survey guy out in the field would have to ~deal with. What was done on the plat was that two property lines were set as major control lines and measured off at particular angles, so every buitding~ is located with great prec±sion and detail from those two property lines. Mr. Bryan was concerned that if additional dimensions were added, to have that all on the plat, and then have a different set of figures available on the site plan would make it terribly confusing. Mr. Bryan was not trying to circumvent any responsibility they had. - 31 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 Mr. Bryan explained' what he meant on the plan to the Board. Mr. Bryan advised the Board that he would be happy to add dimensions where there appeared to be critical dimensions where.~the!~buildings are somewhat close together. He said they would add the dimensions. Mr. Annunziato did not think'it was the Building Official's intention that every building be dimensioned. Mr. Annunziato thought the Building Official was concerned that the building be dimensioned with relation to his neighbors. Mr. Annunziato said that was felt to be important with relation to' locating the build- ings on the site because the inspector that goes out there will not have the benefit of a su~wey crew. Mr. AnnunZiato said, for the City's purposes, they just want the building to look like it is where it is supposed to be. Mr. Bryan said he would have no problem with that, Mr. Bryan informed the Board that he met today .(February 9) with Bert Keehr, Deputy Building Official, regarding his landscape comments. ~Mr. Keehr acknowledged that the Landscape Ordinance is a little unclear as it would relate to residential and multi- family development versus commercial~development and the way you treat off street parking. Mr. Bryan made some examples of other ordinances and believed Mr. Keehr was ~thinking with him that per- haps so~e of his comments were not proper. Mr. Keehr suggested to Mr. Bryan that perhaps it be left to the Community Appearance Board, who was the author of the Landscape Ordinance, and abide by their recommendation. 'Mr. Bryan told the Board'he woUld abide by whatever the Community Appearance Board recommends. Tonight, Mr. Bryan did not want to represent that they would make those changes. Chairman Ryder was concerned' about numbers 3 and 4 of the Building Department's comments. Mr. Annunziato could see no confliCt with leaving both 3 and 4 in, Mr. Annunziato advised that item 3 would be. add,ressed by the Community Appearance Board, I~n fact, Mr. Annunziato said most of the items had already been addressed. The ones that had not~.been addressed were~where they were talking about making interpretations of the Code. Mr. Annunziato still thought ther.e was a need to mention the dimension site plan between buildings. Mr. Annunziato said the roadways were no big deal. Mr. Winter asked if it was one of the highest ~densities in the City. Mr. Annunziato said it was on this particular tract. Mrs. Bond moved that the site plan be'approved, subject to staff comments, The motion was seconded by Mr. Hester. The motion carried 5-2 with Mr. Wandelt and Mr. winter voting,against the motion. - 32 - MINUTES - PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 9, 1982 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Wandelt moved, seconded by Mr. Linkous, to adjourn. Motion carried 7-0, and the-meeting was properly adjourned at 10:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted, (Three Tapes), - 33 - MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Carmen Annunziato DATE: City Planner RE: Sky Lake Plat #2 February 3, 1982 Per our conversation, the Master Plan modification change for Sky Lake makes the development subject to our current sub-division ordinance. The original approval of Plat #1 was based on our current ordinance. The modification as submitted (reduction of units) will require a revision in the Plat #1 requirement. Based on the modifications, the total number of units for Plat #1 and Plat #2 is 184. Applying the land dedication formula to Plats #1 and #2, yields are as follows: Land Dedication Requirements 184 units x .018 = 3.312 acres One half credit for private recreation facilities provided yields a land dedication requirement of 1.656 acres. Plat #1 57 units = 30.98% of the total units 30.98% of 1.656 acres is equal to 0.513 acres. Plat #2 Based on $18,000 per acre value utilized for the original Plat #1 requirement, the fee for Plat # 1 is $ 9~234. The original Plat #1 fee paid ............. $ 9,260. Revised fee'based on modification.~ ....... $ 9,234. CREDIT DUE .............. $ 26. 127 units = 69.02% of total units 69.02% of 1.656 acres is equal to 1.t4 acres. The fee for Plat #2 is equal to: The current land value per acre times 1.15 acres less the $26 credit from the Plat #1 revisions. NOTE: Determination must be made if the $18,000 per acre value is accurate or should be revised. Mr. Carmen Annunziato Sky Lake Plat 2 February 3, 1982 Page 2 Private Recreation'FaCilities The original Master Plan approval required provision of one ballfield, two tennis courts, four shuffleboard courts, and one basketball court on approximately 2.9 acres. The revised modification request has reduced the private recreation acreage to 2.'5 acres. As the lake area of the Plan has been increased, the opportunity exists to provide a jogging path or vita course around the perimeter of the lake and afford future residents an additional recreation amenity and is a reasonable substitute for the loss of the .4 acres in the revised plan. Charles C. Frederick Recreation & Park Director CCF:as