Loading...
Minutes 02-21-80MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, FEBRUARY 21, 1980 PRESENT Arnold Thompson, Chairman Lillian Bond Wayne Drew Marilyn Huckle Simon Ryder Carmen Annunziato, City Planner Pat Frazier, Planning Dept. Secretary ABSENT Fred DiSalle, Vice Chairman Garry Winter Chairman Thompson welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. He introduced the members of the Board, Secretary of the Planning Department, City Planner and Record- ing Secretary. ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman Thompson referred to this being a public hearing and announced we would like to have a time limit of three minutes for each speaker. PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearing to Consider Changes to Section 3-1 of Appendix A and Section 6-C as Amended by Ordinance 79-7 of Appendix A, Code of Ordinances of the CitY of..Boynton Beach Mr. Annunziato announced that the amendments to Section 3-1 of Appendix A constitute the creation of three new zones, Recrea- tion, Public Ownership and Agriculture. PO - Public Ownership District Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that the PO. District is an attempt to coordinate all publicly owned lands in the City. Grouped within the PO District are City owned properties, schools and hospital. He then read the attached proposed draft covering this district. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of this Public Ownership District draft and received no response. He asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to this draft and received no response. He then opened the subject to Board discussion. MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Mrs. Huckle referred to private and semi-private institutions being included in this district and suggested instead of it being called Public Ownership that possibly it should be Public Usage or Public Oriented. She feels this will better address the uses listed under this category. Mrs. Huckle referred to Paragraph b under Uses Permitted and asked if this would exclude a hospital for profit and Mr. Annunziato replied that if a hospital is a commercial opera- tion, then it should be in a commercial zone. Mrs. Huckle referred to a non-profit lodge and Mr. Annunziato informed her that fraternal organizations are provided for in other sections of the code. Mrs. Huckle questioned whether a 15' side yard and 25' rear yard was an adequate setback and Mr. Annunziato replied that possibly this should be considered as there is language in some of the commercial zones that where it abuts a residen- tial district, the setback should be no less than 30'. Mrs. Huckle referred to buffers and Mr. Annunziato informed her these are covered in the general district category. He would prefer to address this when we re-organize the code after adoption of the map. However, he agrees the rear and side yards adjacent to residential uses should have a set- back no less than 30' Mr. Ryder questioned if the minimum square footage and mini- mum lot area would be affected and Mr. Annunziato agreed the usability may be significantly affected. Mrs. Huckle stated depending where a publicly owned building would be, she questions the 45' height limit as a blanket allowance. She explained how it could spring up in an area where heights are controlled. Mr. Ryder commented that he imagines we would have the latitude whether it would be in conformance with the surrounding area. Mr. Annunziato clarified that the maximum structure height is 45 ft. and it must be in harmony with the surrounding area. Mrs. Huckle pointed out that it doesn't state this and she does not know how we could stop it if it doesn't blend in. Mr. Annunziato advised that there is a statement in the site plan review regulations. Mrs. Bond referred to life care retirement places being built and asked if they would be included in this district and Mr. Annunziato replied that they generally are profit making and he thinks they would be properly located in a commercial area where they currently exist in the zoning code. Mr. Ryder referred to Public Ownership not being correct when considering the three uses and Mrs. Huckle suggested Public Oriented or Public Usage. -2- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Mr. Annunziato clarified that it will be changed to Public Usage District and the setbacks will be a minimum of 30 feet when abutting residential districts and the members agreed. Mrs. Huckle moved to adopt this proposed amendment to the zoning regulations to include this Public Usage District as amended, seconded by Mr. Ryder. No discussion. Motion car- ried 5-0. REC - Recreation District Mr. Annunziato stated the idea of this district is to conserve those private and publicly owned recreation areas owing to the importance they plan in satisfying the recreation needs and the waters of Lake Worth and the Intracoastal are included. He then read the attached proposed draft for the Recreation District. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone in the audience cared to speak in favor of this Recreation District draft and received no response. He asked if anyone wanted to speak in opposi- tion to this Recreation District draft. Mr. Gene Moore asked what affect this has on the bulkhead line and Mr. Annunziato replied that some people determined this to be where you could develop, but the State changed it to the high tide line. Mr. Moore asked what about where there is a trustee deed owned to the bulkhead line and Mr. Annunziato informed him the limit to the land is to the high tide line. Mr. Moore asked if he was saying they could not use that land and Mr. Annunziato replied that it can be used for recreation purposes. Mr. Moore stated that this is taking away the right for some people to use %heir land. He objects to it because it is unreasonable and unclear. Chairman Thompson then opened the discussion to the Board members. Mr. Ryder referred to the height and stated he thinks consideration should be given to under 45 feet be- cause of the nature of the area and Mrs. Huckle added that she would hate to be living in a residential area and have a public swimming pool put 25 feet from her property line. She thinks this section deserves careful consideration. Chairman Thompson commented that most of the neighborhood recreation facilities are already developed. Mr. Annunziato added that the issue of what the government will build in a park is very sensitive. If residents are not in favor, it is generally reflected in a general forum. The uses in parks are those which will stabilize a neighborhood. Mrs. Huckle commented that it prObably wouldn't be a problem then. Chairman Thompson questioned whether inland waterways should be included in Item C and Mr. Annunziato replied-this was given thought, but it would be very difficult to indicate that on the zoning map as some canals are all over the place. -3- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Mrs. Huckle referred to section a. under paragraph IA and asked if anyone thought this was wide open wordage and Mr. Annunziato gave the example of a concession in a park which may be privately owned. Mrs. Huckle clarified that she agrees with the intent of the paragraph, but wonders if the wording is a little open and Mr. Ryder replied that it speci- fically rules out recreation areas in a PUD. Mr. Annunziato referred to b. under Conditional Uses Allowed and stated on second thought, he doesn't know if it is neces- sary to include transmission lines and public utilities and require them to go through the public hearing procedure as the site plan hearing should be sufficient. He requests this to be stricken. Mr. Ryder moved that this Board approve adoption of the amend- ment to the zoning regulations for this new district called Recreation District and the draft to be approved subject to revisions. Mrs. Bond seconded the motion. No discussion. Motion carried 5-0. AG - Aqriculture District Mr. Annunziato stated the thinking behind this resulted from a request from Knotlwood Groves to preserve their area. They do farm for profit and do experimental work and are interested in keeping agriculture as .long as practical. It also gave an opportunity to the City to address those uses which could be annexed into the City in the unincorporated area. He then read the proposed draft for the Agriculture District. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak in favor of this Agriculture District draft and re- ceived no response. He asked if anyone cared to speak in opposition to the Agriculture District draft. Mr. Harvey Oyer referred to many people raising potted plants as a side line and asked if this ordinance would prohibit this in their yards or lot in town smaller than one acre? He thinks it is sad if the City would rule that out. Mr. Annunziato asked if he meant for private use or for sale and Mr. Oyer referred to many people having citrus trees and selling the fruit in their yard and stated from what he has heard,this is dictatorial. Mr. Annunziato informed him there was no intent to regulate that activity. It is not regulated on an occupational license basis and is not subject to this regulation. Mr. Oyer stated this may not be his interpretation, but he explained how people come and go in the administration and there are attempts to enforce ordi- nances. The way this reads, he thinks it destroys the right for a kid to put in a patch of black eye peas. Mr. Annunziato replied that he does not see it reading that way and that is not the intent. Mrs. Huckle added that this is strictly addressed to the Agriculture Zone. -4- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Chairman Thompson opened the discussion to the Board members. Mr. Ryder referred to public utilities and Mr. Annunziato requested the whole Conditional Use section be stricken. Mrs. Huckle asked if this meant if a public utility wants to be placed in the Agriculture District, there would be no pro- blem and Mr. Annunziato informed her that the Comprehensive Plan provides utilities are permitted in all zones and struc- tures are subject to site plan review. Chairman Thompson asked if this was intended to be used as a holding zone and Mr. Annunziato replied affirmatively. Chair- man Thompson clarified that a number of areas are zoned R-1AAA and could be rezoned to Agriculture under this. Mr. Annunziato added that he doesn't think we have that much acreage left in this category and the remainder is pretty much in a developable mode. Mrs. Bond moved to amend the zoning regulations to include this Agriculture District as amended, seconded by Mr. Ryder. No discussion. Motion carried 5-0. C-4 Uses in C-3 Zone Mr. Annunziato stated the last aspect of the changes to the code itself involves taking some of the uses in C-4 and plac- ing them in C-3 to reduce the non-conformity which may result in changing the zoning downtown. He then read his attached memo dated 10/29/79. Chairman Thompson asked if anyone wanted to speak in refer- Ince to these changes. Ir. Robert Beane asked if they wanted to change some things chich are zoned C-4 to C-3 and Mr. Annunziato clarified that zhe suggestion is some of the uses which were permitted in 2-4 be permitted in C-3 and it was those uses which were zead. 4r. Beane questioned the borders of downtown and Mr. Annunziato pointed this out on the map. Mr. Beane referred to owning property next to the dog pound and asked how he could use ~his property and Mr. Annunziato informed him it is in the ~°wntown area and could be used for the uses permitted in the ~-3 zone. Mr. Beane stated that he has an engineering and ~echanical shop and this means if they move, another one Cannot go in there and Mr. Annunziato agreed and explained if the license expires for a period of six months, it could ot go back in. ~r. Beane stated this property is by the aiIroad tracks and across the t~acks~ it is .zoned M-1. Why ~o they want an office by the railroad tracks? Because his property is on the east side, he is going to be penalized. -5- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Mr. Beane continued that this property is next to the dog pound and the dog pound will be non-conforming. What is he supposed to do with his property? Mr. Annunziato stated he thinks these objections should be raised when we go into the map. The uses permitted in C-3 are those uses which he can use his land for. Mr. Beane stated if this is done, he is going to sue the City because they are downgrading his pro- perty. Mr. Bob Griffith, 630 East Ocean Avenue, stated that he owns property on S.E. 12th Avenue near the railroad tracks. If the map advertised is supposed to be a posted notice or for the purpose.of giving the City notice, he thinks it is out of order. He does not think the notices were properly han- dled. He came to view the posted map at City Hall, but it wasn't even prepared. He told about checking with the vari- ous departments in City Hall and no map being available and the members of the Planning Department not even knowing there was going to be a hearing. He thinks this is entirely out of order as notD~ can determine anything from the map pub- lished. Mr. Ryder agreed that it was unfortunate he could not get information on a larger scale, but the published map did alert the people. Mr. Griffith stated that publications are to give the public complete knowledge of what is going to be done and there is a statute covering this subject and this notice does not meet it. Mr. Annunziato informed him this notice was prepared carefully by the City Attorney. We are operating under Chapter 163 and 166. Chapter 166 requires the advertising of a map, but Chapter 163 does not require that. The map will be advertised for the Council's hearing. He does believe we are legal and have fulfilled more than the requirements of the law. Mr. Griffith stated the citizens should be properly notified by a map to tell what the property will be zoned and Mr. Annunziato replied that Chapter 163 only requires publishing notification of changes. The map published arose some interest as people are present. Mr. Griffith agreed, but pointed out not many people were present. Mr. Annunziato informed him the notification is in conformance with the City Attorney's instructions. Mr. Griffith asked Mr. Annunziato to tell him the zoning of his property on 12th Avenue from the map published. Mr. Annunziato pointed out the zoning of this property on the large zoning map. Chairman Thompson opened the discussion to the Board members. Mrs. Huckle referred to picking these uses out of C-4 to be allowed in C-3 and asked if the lot sizes and different specifications would be complimentary to these uses and be adequate? Has this been thoroughly researched? Mr. Annunziato informed her that he researched the affect of the ownership pattern. In some areas, it doesn't appear to be a problem, such as in shopping centers. The ownership and development of individual lots he would like to look at longer when we re-address the zoning book itself. It may -6- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 or may not be a problem and in some instances it will be a benefit. Mrs. Huckle referred to the uses being complimen- tary to C-4 with smaller lots when prepared in 1975, but ques- tioned how the requirements will be changed with putting them in the C-3 zone. Mr. Annunziato pointed out that most of these uses will be found on a large lot or in a shopping center. Mrs. Huckle referred to the lot frontage being different and Mr. Ryder questioned if the minimum lot area would pose a problem. Mr. Ryder stated that probably these uses would go into a shopping center or small group of stores. Mr. Annunziato stated one additional item the Board may address concerns furniture stores which are currently per- mitted in C-4 and could .appropriately be located in C-3. Mr. Ryder suggested that No. 9 be furniture stores and home furnishings. Mr. Drew questioned how additional uses could be placed on this list and Mr. Annunziato replied that an ordinance amend- ment could always be submitted. Mr. Gene Moore summarzied that it appears the C-4 areas are being eliminated and questioned what uses would be left in C-4 and Mrs. Huckle replied that we are not eliminating any. Mr. Annunziato read the following uses which would still be permitted: Automobile and Truck Sales and Rental Agencies Automobile Wash Establishments Automotive Parts and/or Repairs Including Major Repairs Battery and Tire Sales and Service within an enclosed building Beverage Distribution Electrical, Plumbing, Heating, Painting, Upholstery and Roofing Supplies Paint and Repair Shops (_Including Automobile Body and Fender Work, Entirely within an Enclosed Building) Printing and~ Sign Shops Recreation Vehicle Sales Service Stations Small Equipment and Tool Rentals Wholesale Establishments Fabrication and assemly of custom cab±nets and furniture within fully enclosed buildings having a maximum floor area not more than 6,000 sq. feet -7- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Mr. Moore asked if the Board felt they should give some more consideration to preserving some of these uses? What is wrong with an automobile agency in downtown Boynton Beach? The only C-4 areas are isolated areas. Mr. Drew stated that he thinks this is affecting a lot of people and he has not given enough consideration to this. He does not feel enough thought or preparation was given to this. On this particular issue, he thinks we should do more investigation. Mr. Annunziato informed him this is supple- mentary action to what has already occurred. On August 1, 1979, the Comprehensive Plan was adopted which changed the uses in downtown. He is suggesting supplementing what has already occurred. Mr. Drew stated when hearing the list of some of the things which are excluded, he feels some things should be additional to the list. Mr. Annunziato suggested they be addressed and Mr. Drew replied that he doesn't feel we can properly address it now. Chairman Thompson stated when we started on the Comprehensive Plan sometime ago, a study was done in the downtown area and it was found there was none. In order to create one, we have to start somewhere. Do we want an automobile repair center beside a beautiful financial building? He thinks it would behoove this City to attract good faCilities like nice shop- ping centers with a theme and hotels. We cannot leave repair shops, which are an eyesore there now and attract decent facilities to our downtown area. He realizes we are hitting some people in the pocketbook, but with upgrading the City, the land will be worth more, We are trying to help the resi- dents and must consider what is going to happen in a few years. Mr. Robert Beane referred to the statement of not wanting repair shops downtown and stated this makes sense, but how come they are considering the property he owns as downtown when right across the tracks it isn't? Chairman Thompson replied that boundaries can change. Mr. Beane stated that he doesn't think a good study was made on this plan. Mr. Annunziato jammed it to the Board and they rubber stamped it. Chairman Thompson informed him that changes can be made to the plan, but there must be future planning. He cannot find out if the zoning is being changed of his office md would like to know if he will still be able to park his trucks there. Mr. Annunziato informed him that his office will be legal but non-conforming; an office is permitted in any district. Mr. Beane referred back to his property by the dog pound and told about the occupant applying for a used car license, but the City would not let him apply for it because the Comprehen- sive Plan says it is going to be C-3. Mr. Annunziato informed him that the State Attorney General has ruled you cannot issue -8- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 a land development order contrary to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Uses in downtown do not provide for car sales. Mr. Beane remarked that this does not help the guy trying to make a living and he cannot even go to the City Council to find out. Chairman Thompson informed him that anyone can speak to the City Council under public audience. Mr. Harvey ~yer referred to the issue of a downtown core center and stated the approach the City is using is directly opposite of what would be constructive for the City. Most communities have created a downtown section by a legislative act and have given certain powers and certain abilities to change the regulations in some things. It isn't the desire on the part of the property owners to have a substandard build- ing. He told about Delray Beach creating and improving their downtown and how it was impossible in Boynton Beach to do this because the present ordinances will not allow this. Also with the type of notices published, property owners cannot keep track of what this City is doing. He objects to rezoning downtown from C-4 to C-3. One of the uses being outlawed is print shops and he referred to several in the downtown area which have been in business for years and are not detrimental to the community. He told how he was not able to secure a building permit to upgrade his buildings in the downtown area. A different approach is what is needed to allow free enterprise and give a better community to live in. Mr, Annunziato re- plied that nothing in the Comprehensive Plan would prohibit what Mr. Oyer is suggesting, It was suggested that a down- town study be performed and possibly a Downtown Development Authority could result from this. Mr. Ryder asked why the properties downtown hadn't been improved and Mr, Oyer in- formed him that it cannot be done under the laws of the City government. Chairman Thompson suggested giving this further consideration and discussing further at a workshop meeting, Mr, Annunziato suggested this portion of the hearing be continued to the regular Planning & Zoning Board meeting of next Tuesday, He announced this public hearing to discuss the additional uses to the C-3 zone will be continued to the next Planning & Zoning Board meeting on February 26 at 8:00 P, M. Mr, Ryder moved to continue this hearing to the next regular meeting of the Planning & Zoning Board with regard to C-4 uses in the C-3 zone, seconded by Mrs, Huckle, Motion car- ried 5-0. -9- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Public Hearing to Consider Amending the Existing Zoning Map of the City of Boynton Beach to Conform with the Comprehensive Plan Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that an attempt was made to tabulate those areas on the groUnd which would change as a result of the land use element ~s a result of the Comprehen- sive Plan. He suggests the peoples' objections be discussed first. Mr. Bud Post of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., stated he was present to represent the N. R. Field family interest. He referred to seven of their parcels being affected by the rezoning and advised they contest one of them. This is Area 12 fronting on North Seacrest Blvd. and backing up to 1-95. Mr. Annunziato clarified that it is Item 3 on his list presently zoned C-2 to be changed to R-1 and Item 5 changes R-1 to C-2. This is located to the north of 28th Court on the west side of Seacrest Blvd. Mr. Post continued that this was annexed to the City as C-2. The City is proposing to retain C'2 along the frontage and R-1 for the area west to 1-95. Mr. Annunziato added this is ~at is proposed and adopted in the Comprehensive Plan and would be consistent with the surrounding land uses. Mr. Post continued that they are ob- jecting to the R-1 zoning. Basically they agree with the C-2 zoning along Seacrest Blvd., but think it is better to have the-zoning in the rear be R-3 instead of R-1. Mr. Barden then read their attached letter dated February 21 into the record to clarify their request. Mr. Ryder questioned how they reached the conclusion that high density would be more compatible in this area and Mr. Barden replied that the property is located in close proximity to 1-95 and it is their understanding Seacrest Blvd. is to be widened to four lanes. The traffic volume would not make this property desirable from the single family residential standpoint. With clustering of development, it is possible to alleviate the affects of pollutants from increased traffic. Mr. Ryder informed him the Comprehensive Plan considers what is there now and he finds it hard to agree that high density would be more compatible. Mr. Barden referred to the present economic conditions and explained that a $40,000 house would have a mortgage payment in excess of $600 per month and this area basically appears to be a moderate income neighborhood. With the clustering concept, it would be better under a higher density classification. He feels R-1 does not give enough leeway to get the benefit of clustering unless dealing with a large piece of land. -10- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Mr. Annunziato clarified the issue is do we want to change the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate this request. The density is 7.6 which exceedS that to the north, east and south. It could be developed in a small PUD. Certainly this is one way to look at it, but is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan adopted. Mr. Post questioned the administrative process to be followed for a change and Mr. Annunziato informed him that this Board can make a recommendation to the City Council and if they are in agreement, the plan could be modified. He explained that the Comprehensive Plan was required by the Local Government Planning Act. Mr. Post clarified that R-1 zoning was approved and adopted with the land use plan and Mr. Annunziato replied that a land development order cannot be issued contrary to the plan and the plan calls for 7.62 units per acre. Mr. Post stated this density could not be reached on this tract after putting in streets, etc. He does not think R-1 is reasonable between stores and 1-95. Mr. Annunziato added that the poten- tial exists for a rezoning request and Mr. Post clarified that if the Board does not recommend R-3, they would have to go before the City Council. He asked if the staff was aware of the conditions how this was brought into the City and Mr. Annunziato replied negatively. Mr. Post stated he does not know if the notices published were adequate and proper and this was not brought to his attention until ten days ago. Mr. Annunziato informed him the Compre- hensive Plan went through the public procedure as required by State law. Mr. Post stated the property owners were not aware of the effect on their specified parcels. Mrs. Huckle referred to the annexation agreement negotiated between the trust of Field and the City and stated this obvi- ously was not known to the City when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and they were not aware of the hearings and August action. Mr. Annunziato added this annexation agree- ment was never made public through the Comprehensive Plan procedure. He thinks this should be referred to the City Attorney. Mrs. Huckle made a motion that this item be brought to the attention of the City Attorney with regards to the annexation agreement with the City in 1961 to 'see what impact it has on the current zoning of the property in question. Mr. Drew seconded the motion. Chairman Thompson clarified that it has been moved and seconded this item pertaining to Item 12 on the Comprehensive Land Use Element be brought to the attention of the City Attorney prior to the next Council meeting for his study. Mrs. HUckle clarified that she was more pointedly asking that the N. R, Field irrevocable trust, agreement with the CityI be brought to Mr. Vance's attention for scrutiny as to legal stance before any zoning recommendations could be made. Motion carried 5-0. -11- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Mr. Gene Moore referred to the Board having some statistics of the impact of this plan and asked if they had made a com- putation of what properties would be non-conforming and Mr. Annunziato replied that he did not have the figures with him. Mr. Moore stated that if there is a fire, the property cannot be used for its old use and he thinks it is important to know what the percentage is. Mr. Annunziato informed him that we have not made a computation of the entire plan, but there were some uses which would be made conforming. Mr. Moore stated he thinks it is a critical issue to know this. Also, he thinks by their action with adoption of the PO Dis- trict, they have rendered certain areas of the City non-con- forming. The water towers are higher than 45 feet and if they fall over, they cannot be replaced. He also thinks there may be some businessmen with businesses rendered non-conform- ing. He thinks there will be trouble with getting occupa- tional licenses. A lot of people will be hurt. Mr. Ryder asked if he had an alternative and Mr. Moore replied that he thinks rezoning is wrong when it affects a lot of people working and living here. They should be given more consider- ation. Mr. Moore then ~eferred to his property next to the Lake City Trailer Park and pointed out that this is to be zoned R-1AA and questioned why the commercial frontage stopped at his property line. Mr. Annunziato stated this is along North Federal Highway on the east side and by placing C-3 there, it would result in spot zoning surrounded on the south and east with residential. Mr. Moore pointed out that it has always been commercial all along Federal High- way and he objects to it stopping at his lot. Mr. Annunziato commented that perhaps an error was made where the line was drawn and Mr. Moore requested this to be checked. He thinks R-1AA is unfair because of the adjacent location of the trailer park and the marina to the north; he thinks R-3 would be more compatible. Mr. Ryder asked if he preferred R-3 to commercial and Mr. Moore replied negatively and clar- ified that he is talking about the rear part should be R-3 with the frontage on Federal Highway being commercial. Mr. Moore then referred to his property on S. E. 12th Avenue being zoned R-3 and stated this is right next to the railroad track with M-1 on the other side of the track. He thinks this is an isolated area and will be difficult to improve. He feels it should be M-1 to be compatible. Mr. Annunziato clarified that this is C-3 and Mr. Moore replied that C-3 is improper. Mr. Annunziato informed him it was zoned C-3 prior to adoption of the plan and Mr. Moore replied this is too restrictive of zoning for property next to the railroad track. It should be changed on the new plan. MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Mr. Moore then referred to property he owns zoned R-2 in back of the City water plant and stated this is a narrow strip of land and he doesn't think it can be developed for residential use. With the setbacks required~ his right to use the property is denied. Mr. Annunziato informed him this tract is zoned R-2 and was zoned R-2 since 1975. Mr. Moore questioned how the property could be used and Mr. Annunziato replied that it probably would have to be combined with larger acreage. At this time, Chairman Thompson declared a five minute recess. He reconvened the meeting at 9:55 P. M. Mr. Harvey Oyer referred to there being a 1½ block area on the north side of Woolbright Road zoned residential and told about no residential homes being built in this area during the past ten years. He believes the present zoning is a political attempt to deprive the property owners to use their property to the highest and best use. It is detrimental to have property zoned residential at the access to an expressway. C-4 is ideally situated on four lane roads leading to an ex- pressway. This zoning is contrary to the ordinances adopted. There has been no use of the property. He referred to Wool- bright Road being four laned and 1-95 being constructed and told about this area having a lot of traffic with noise and air pollution. If the property owners cannot obtain relief, they will probably convert to low class residential units which will be a bad approach to the City of Boynton Beach. This is the only road going from 1-95 to A1A and it should be a source of pride to the co--unity. He then told about the undesirable conditions making it hard to reside at this loca- tion. He requests there be some consistency in the ordinances and this area be zoned commercially. Mrs. Huckle referred to this being addressed in the Comprehen- sive Plan and questioned the reasoning and Mr. Annunziato in- formed her the intent was to preserve the residential area to the north. Mr. Oyer responded that the use of the proper- ties facing on Woolbright Road should not affect the people living to the north. He personally suggested about a year ago that this should be zoned back to 14th Avenue so the people on the south side of 14th Avenue could sell for a commercial use with a 25' setback required from 14th Avenue. There would be more intensive use of the property and it should not adversely affect the residents further north. One man objected at the last hearing he attended, but since then he has moved out of the area and he lived three or four blocks away. There is no reason the property could not be developed commercially from 14th to 15th Avenues and by allow- ing a greater area to be zoned commercial, there would be more attractive businesses. -13- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Mr. Ryder referred to Venetian Apartments not having any pro- blems and Mr. Oyer replied this is west of 1-95 and the present zoning to the east is single family and apartments are not allowed. He referred to Leisureville building homes, but ex- plained how they are built not to be fronting on Woolbright Road. The property he is referring to is located in an exist- ing subdivision and there is no way to change the streets or the direction in which the property is located. Mr. Ryder referred to there being residential developments on 15th Avenue and Mr. Oyer disagreed and pointed out this was not true. He added that on either 2nd Avenue or Woolbright Road going to 1-95 from the Intracoastal, all the property is either public, commercial or multi-family with the exception of this small parcel. They are trying to make two blocks bear the burden for the wishes of a few people not directly affected by this. The property owners are being denied the use. The only residential development was done at a time when they were not aware there would be an access to 1-95. Chairman Thompson asked if there would be some requirement by the Road Department regarding ingress and egress onto 15th Avenue and Mr. Annunziato agreed this could be one of the problems. Mr. Oyer replied this was true along 2nd Avenue. He referred to 50 ft. lots existing along 2nd Avenue and stated that in the two referenced blocks along 15th Avenue, only a few owners were involved. The City can control the accesses. Mr. Robert Beane requested the Board not to make a decision, but to give this further consideration. If they rezone the 2nd Avenue area to C-3, it will be zoning the gas stations out. Mr. Annunziato informed him they would not be zoned out as this zoning recommendation is the same as it existed in 1975. Mr. Beane referred to some gas stations being in the C-2 zone and stated if they burn down, they cannot be rebuilt. More gas stations are needed than we have. 2nd Avenue will be the busiest road with traffic going from 1-95 to the beach. This should not all be changed to C-3 as a motel is needed in this area also. Mr. Jeff Tomberg referred to the property mentioned by Mr. Oyer at 15th Avenue and 2nd Street and stated when this pro- perty was first purchased, Woolbright Road ended at 3rd Street and the cemetery did not go past 1st Street and it made sense then to be residential. However, 1-95 came and 15th Avenue was widened and goes to Congress Avenue and it is no longer habitable as a single family residential area. By leaving this property zoned R-1AA, it affects its highest and best use. He referred to the traffic being heavy at this location and explained how it was an ideal location for a professional office to serve the people. This property has no Other use than to be used as a commercial area. This would not affect the residential area to the north. -14- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Mr. Ryder stated when changing from residential to commercial, there are financial implications. He feels we must act in the general interest. He feels going to commercial will have an impact on the residential area. Mr. Tomberg requested the Board to reconsider this area. Mrs. Huckle asked if he ad- dressed the public hearings when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and Mr. Tomberg replied affirmatively. Mr. Joe Tomberg questioned how this 1½ block area could be left residential and referred to the City not even being in favor of hav~ng residential along here with increasing the Size of their cemetery, locating a pumping station there, and having athletic fields there with lights on at nights. He then told about 2nd Street being heavily travelled and a constant traffic hazard. An office building in that area would be less confusing. The highest and best use of that property has to be commercial. Mrs. Bobbie Tomberg told about it not being very pleasant to live at this location. She stressed that this location is suitable for commercial, but not for a residence. She feels it should be used for the best purposes. Mr. Annunziato clarified that every effort was made to pre- serve the residential area to the north. There is no ques- tion it can be utilized for commercial purposes; however, the impact to the residential area to the north could be severe. The issues are traffic, land use conflict, and preservation of the neighborhood. This is not being rezoned to single family and not being changed to commercial, but the City Council left it the way it was. Mr. Annunziato stated that he thinks Mr. Beane made a good point and we should not make a motion on this, but continue this until next Tuesday. He does not think it will be neces- sary for the people to come and present the same objections. The Board will address what they have heard tonight and the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jeff Tomberg clarified that he is saying the people have had their say and the Board will make a decision later. Mr. Annunziato clarified this Board will make a recommendation to the City Council, but to repeat what was stated tonight is redundant. He thinks the Board under- stands the objections. If there is new information, cer- tainly they would want to hear it. There will be another series of public hearings by the City Council. He suggests they follow the public hearing procedure with being aware of the actions taken. Mr. Joe Tomberg stated that they don't have any way of knowing about these hearings and have to keep calling City Hall. Chairman Thompson. informed him that the notices are published in The Post on Saturdays. -15- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Mrs. Huckle stated since this advertised public hearing had a map included pinpointing the certain areas to be rezoned and since this area is not advertised on the map, is it within our province to make recommendations for other areas? The neigh- bors north of them feel the area isn't going to be changed from the map published. Mr. Joe Tomberg replied that he believes the City Ordinances take care of any change in zoning by no- tice. Mrs. Huckle clarified that this area has not been noted for a change in the advertisement. Mr. Joe Tomberg commented that he thinks 'a notice should be sent to the property owners. Mr. Annunziato clarified that the map is to bring areas into conformity with the plan. Mr. Joe Tomberg clarified that they are present to file an objection to the plan and if people are going to be affected, they should be notified. Mr. Ryder made a motion to continue this in addition to the other matter at our next meeting on February 26, 1980 at 8:00 P. M., seconded by Mrs. Bond. No discussion. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Annunziato clarified that we should not entertain changes not advertised. Mrs. Huckle clarified that on the map being addressed, there are 96 proposed changes, but there is noth- ing we can do about this last request because this property was not advertised. Mr. Jeff Tomberg asked how this could be advertised and Mrs. Huckle explained that the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in August and some of the labels given to the City were not included and the purpose of this hearing is to adopt the map to coincide with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Annunziato added we are here addressing only those areas not conforming to the existing land use element. This was brought to the City Council's attention at the previous public hearings by Mr. Tomberg, but they adopted the land use plan and did not change the zoning. Mr. Joe Tomberg asked if he was saying they would have to take this issue to court and Mr. Annunziato replied that if the Council determines the adopted plan is no longer functional, they can go through a re-adoption procedure. The land use element says we cannot issue a land development order contrary to the plan. Mr. Joe Tomberg requested a letter from the Board stating their position. Mrs. Huckle suggested requesti~ rezoning and Mr. Joe Tomberg replied that they have been told they cannot make such a request. Mr. Annunziato clarified that he does not know what action the City Council would take because they have adopted the plan. Mr. Joe Tomberg stated in calling the City, they were told to be present at this hearing to present their objections and Mr. Annunziato replied they can still express their objec- tions, but they may not be addressed by the Board. -16- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD FEBRUARY 21, 1980 Mr. Jeff Tomberg asked if they would file a rezoning request and Mrs. Huckle replied that would be proper. She added that we must be careful to address only those parcels adver- tised. Since this area has been advertised to remain as it is, we cannot go ahead and make a change. Mr. Annunziato agreed the arguments presented should be limited to those tracts of land marked on the plan. ADJOURNMENT Mrs. Huckle made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Bond. Motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 11:00 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne M. Kruse Recording Secretary (Four Tapes) -17- AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD Special Meeting DATE: TIME: PLACE: February 21st, 1980 7:30 P.M. Council chambers City Hall 1. Acknowledgement of Members and Visitors. 2. Reading and Approving of Minutes. 3. Announcements. 4. Communications. 5. Old Business: New Business: PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public Hearing to consider changes to Section 3-1 of Appendix A and Section 6-C as amended by Ordinance 79-7 of Appendix A, code of ordinances of the City of Boynton Beach. Public Hearing to consider amending the' existing zoning map of the City of Boynton Beach to Conform with the Comprehensive Plan. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Plan'hi~g and Zoning. Board of the ~City of ~Boynton Beach, Florida, Will-hola~,'a s~Cial Meeting, ThurSday, Februa~ '21, 1980, 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers, City. Hall,-120 N~E. 2nd-AV'e. to consider amendmentS to: ~ . ~ - . · .- · .. 1.'' ~section-3~1 of Appendix A - zoning Regulations of the Code.of Ordinances of the.City~of~ Boynton Beach ' -~ t° inclUde-the creation of - ~ ~" ~ - '~ - ~ · '~ , -- ~ / · /~:,~'. ~ ~, . ' b. ~'~Public~ OWnershiP~District ~ _ ', .- . 2. ' Sedtion 6-C .as amended by Ordinance NO..79-7 of 'said _. appendix to !permit~ the following uses in i. C-3 .C°mmuni%y _ ...... CommerCial District.. ~ - , a. Bicycle sales and RePairs b. ,Bo'at Sales Agencies .- as a conditional use* c.' Bus Terminals and' Taxi Offices. · d. Governmental Facilities Marinas - including dry storage as a conditional nse* Office Supplies and Furniture Stores Trade and Business Schools~ ~ Yachtels and Boatels The existing Zoning Map of the City of Boynton Beach to conform with tl"m~ Comprehensive Plan, adopted Aug.ust 21. All ~in%eres%ed parties .may be heard in person or 'by letter. PUBL I SH: CITY OF ~OYNTON BEACH THE POST February 2 and.9, .1980 TEREESA PADGETT CITY CLERK, NOTICE OF ZONING CHA and-Zoning Board of the Oty Of Boynton Beacl~ :~' ~; ' N.E. 2nd Avenue';~!--,~:~,~-.,