Loading...
Minutes 06-12-79MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING $ ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1979 PRESENT Arnold Thompson, Chairman Ezell Hester Caesar Mauti Frank Oberle Simon Ryder Carmen Annunziato, City Planner Craig Grabeel, Asst. City Planner ABSENT Fred DiSalle, Vice Chairman Gene Johnson (Excused) Chairman Thompson called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. MINUTES OF MAY 22, !979 Mr. Hester moved to accept the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Oberle. Motion carried 5-0. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Annunziato announced a meeting Was held by the Technical Advis- ory Committee last Thursday and the comprehensive plan was discussed and the plan was well received. He did receive copies of the offi- cial comments compiled by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Com- mittee which were very complimentary and noted all the elements exceeded the statutory requirements. NEW BUSINESS Site Plan Approval Applicant: LoCation: Legal Description: Proiect Description: Perrin Mifsud, Inc. (Bob Mifsud, Agent) N. E. 7th Street, East of N. E. 7th Avenue Lots 18, 19, 20, 21, Block 7, Lake Addition 8 Townhouses and One Apartment Mr. Annunziato informed the Board this is a nine unit condominium complex located on N. E. 7th Street consisting of eight townhouses and one condominium apartment. He explained how the height compli- ments the condominiums and houses in the area. He then explained the site plan and floor layout for the units. Mr. Annunziato referred to the staff comments and read Mr. Howell's notes as follows: 1) Sidewalks required on N. E. 7th Street 2) Handicap ramp does not meet code due to the fact there are no 5' level areas every 30' as required by code and no rails. MINUTES - PLANNING &'ZONING BOARD JUNE 12, 1979 3) Building access on at least two apartments must meet handicap code for accessibility. · ) Site plan does not indicate handicap parking signs. 5) Parapet walls are in excess of 45' of average grade and must have Council approval. Mr Annunziato then read the recommendations noted by the City Engineer: 1) A 5' drainage easement for a f~ture City storm sewer or swale that will benefit this property is required adja- cent to the north property line. 2) An 18" perforated corrugated metal pipe should be used with catch basin at each end (to facilitate cleaning) for french drain~. 3) Normal and high water table levels should be indicated along with a subsoil investigation for type of soil. 4) In this area, a pervious membranee surrounding the rock drain would be appropriate. 5) The sixth and seventh column of the drainage schedule is incorrect. 6) Pavement shall be a minimum of 6" of rock and !" of asphalt on a stable subgrade material. Mr. Annunziato also read the commen~s noted on the plan by the Utility Department, Police Department, General Services and Planning Department. Mr. Bob Mifsud representing Perrin Mifsud, Inc. came before the Board. Mr. Ryder referred to the subsoil conditions and questioned on what basis they were going to proceed on the foundation and Mr. Mifsud explained they would go down about 20' to 28' with pilings. Mr. Ryder asked if there would be a sea wall and Mr. Mifsud replied negatively as it is not permitted by D.E.R. and the Army Corps of Engineers. He explained that the mangroves and wetlands would be preserved. Mr. Annunziato added that preservation of the mangroves is consistent with our comprehensive plan. Mr. Annunziato asked if there were any problems with the staff com- menus and Mr. Mifsud replied the recommendations seem to be satis- factory and he sees no problems. The Architect stated they would like to get approval subject to reviewing the staff comments and Mr. Mauti replied approval could only be given subject to the staff comments and not subject to the applicant approving the staff com- ments. The Architect stated he did not see anything critical which would require redesigning. Mr. Mauti'made a motion to approve this plan subject to staff com- ments, seconded by Mr. Hester. Under discussion, Mr. Ryder referred to the parapet walls requiring Council approval if they exceed 45' and Mr. Mauti replied this was covered by the staff comments. Motion carried 5-0. -2- MINUTES - PLANNING L ZONING BOARD JUNE 12, 1979 Discussion Open Storage and Zoning Ordinance - Section 4, B, 2 Mr. Bud Howell, Building Official, came before the Board and referred to the Building Department having to enforce the zoning codes set by this Board and advised they have run into some problems. In regard to open storage~ he requests the height limitations be taken into consideration in conjunction with maximum allowable fence heights. He told about lumber yards and fence companies actually storing their supplies in'excess of the maximum fence height allowed. He does not know how the Board wants to address this, but it is a problem with referring to having to screen something from public view. Mr. Howell requested that it be reflected in our ordinance a defini- tion for "properly screened", pertaining to open storage yards, shall be of a solid and durable material, such as wood, aluminum, masonry, etc. He has discussed this with Mr. Annunziato and they have run into problems where people want to use bamboo on the inside of a fence for screening, which he does not think is durable and should not be allowed. We should be specific in our definition of what is meant by properly screened. Mr. Howell suggested that somewhere in our ordinance we have a stipulation imposing the responsibility for the maintenance of said screening on the owner of the property and/or his lessee. He also suggests that open storage be permitted only in affiliation with an on-going business, represented by the existence of a build- ing, in conjunction with the open storage area. These are some of the problems they have run into when enforcing the ordinance. He does not think a conclusion can be reached tonight, but wanted to advise the Board of some of the problems. Mr. Howell referred to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 4B2, Page 14, and stated he would appreciate this being changed to read 7T maxi- mum ceiling height and a 7'6" overall height. This would be allow- ing proper heights for standard doors and would not limit an owner having a small pitch on his roof for water run-off. Additionally~ he feels that the 3T rear setback should address any part of the roof, so these buildings could not have overhangs which encroach in the 3' setback. He explained how the height caused problems with getting a door to fit and also how a 2' roof overhang caused problems with having a 3T setback. He added that our other ordi- nances allow a 2T encroachment into the building setback lines~ but he does not think it should be allowed for s utility shed. Mr. Mauti asked if there was anything in the code stipulating any structure cannot exceed the side lines and Mr. Howell informed him we do allow up to a 10 x 10' ~cessory building and explained the only thing which can encroach is the overhang. Mr. Mauti stated in the County if an overhang is 2', it becomes part and parcel of -3- MINUTES - PLANNING $ ZONING BOARD JUNE 12, 1979 of the main structure and the side yards must start from that point. Mr. Howell clarified that we do not allow anything except an over- hang to encroach and only for 2' Mr. Mauti stated having a 3' side and rear yard on an accessory building should include an overhang on all roofs and Mr. Howell agreed and stated the 3' setback should address any part of the roof and if they want a 2' overhang, it must set back 5~. Mr. Mauti referred to the setbacks causing accessory buildings to be located in the middle of back yards and Mr. Howell agreed this had been a problem and the Planning & Zoning Board addressed it and an accessory building is allowed to be within 3' of the property line~ but the maximum size allowed is 100 square feet. Chairman Thompson asked if he wanted a definite decision to be made by the Board and Mr. Howell replied that he did not expect a deci- sion tonight, but would appreciate the members looking at this and studying the zoning book and if in agreement, come up with an ordi- nance to make it simpler. Mr. Ryder referred to Mr. Annunziato having prepared a draft regard- ing open storage and Mr. Howell replied he was i'n agreement with this. Mr. Annunziato clarified that the draft was an attempt on his part to extract from the minutes the important points of dis- cussion concerning this. He needs some direction from the Board what they would like to do. Chairman Thompson referred to having two ~i~uations to consider - the existing ~hd future. We cannot handle bot'h the same way. He explained how those existing could not be expected to comply immed- iately and Mr. Howell agreed and suggested obtaining a legal opinion. Mr. Annunziato suggested possibly including an amortizing non-con- fo~mity clause such as the sign ordinance includes. They discussed at length how non-conforming situations could be made to comply. Mr. Howell informed the Board that House Bill 1161 was introduced in this legislative session which proposes to allow municipalities create a Board to hear zoning violations. It has been a problem getting these violations processed through the court. This will be law October 1 and the City can create a Board who will have the authority to subpoena, fine and get violations corrected. Discus- sion followed regarding how this would help. Mr. Annunziato asked if it was the Board's opinion the open storage issue has to be addressed further with making the ordinance more definitive and addressing the standards and regulations and Mr. Ryder replied that it apparently is a problem at the present time and requiring a building to have screening and setting a duration period for open storage should help. -4- MINUTES - PLANNING & ZONING BOARD JUNE 12, 1979 Mr. Mauti asked if a permit is required for open storage now and Mr. Howell replied negatively and they only have to apply for a license. He added if a company has a lot and it is screened by 6T, then they can have open storage. Mr. Annunziato suggested that he and the Building Official be instructed to prepare a draft proposal in ordinance form for the Board's review. Chairman Thomp- son referred to a legal opinion being needed and Mr. Annunziato replied he would discuss it with the attorney. Mr. Mauti made a motion to delegate Mr. Annunziato and Mr. Howell to come up with some kind of ordinance with the approval of the City Attorney to give this open storage matter a corrective mea- sure for screening, etc. as the Building Official sees fit for Board review. Mr. Ryder seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Ryder then made a motion to includeda provision, along with the previous recommendation, for altering the limitation on accessory buildings with regard to setbacks, seconded by Mr. Hester. Motion carried 5-0. Other Mr. Ryder referred to the City Council having approved on first reading an ordinance dealing with the extension of City utilities in connection with future developments and asked if Mr. Annunziato could give some information on this. Mr. Annunziato explained that currently a developer is required to pay three fees: the connec- tion charge which charges for a portion of the plan, a tap fee and meter fee. He explained how the new ordinance was more definitive and provided for a capital utilities fee to pay for the sewer and water plants and distribution facilities. The developer has to have a feasibility study prepared prior to receiving approval for construction of utility lines to determine the cost to the City, results of the fees to the City and that the utility lines proposed are consistent with the master sewer and water lines shown in the comprehensive plan. Also included is a section regarding the City's participation pertaining to oversizing of lines which has not been finalized. He explained how this ordinance provides for a capital facilities fee and arranges for properly defined connection fees. He thinks this will help support our utility fund. Mr. Howell added that the Building Department will be collecting impact fees for the County in conjunction with the impacts the developments will make on the major arteries taking effect July 1. Mr. Annunziato added that we have addressed this fee in the approval of ma~or developments. Discussion followed regarding the basis for this fee. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Mauti made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Oberle. Motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne M. Kruse, Recording Secretary (One Tape ) --5-- AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD Regular Meeting DATE: TIME: PLACE: June 12th, 1979 7:30 P.M. Council Chambers- CityHalI 2. 3. 4. Communications 5. Old Business Acknowledgement of Members and Visitors. Reading and Approvingof Minutes. Announcements. 6. New Business: _ A. Sit~ Plan-Approval: Appl-icant: ~Perrin Mifsud-Inc. (Bo~MifsudrA Agent~-- Location.: ~_~.E~'_.Tth Street; East~of N~E.~,7th~ven~e.~ Legit-Description:_ _ Lots~18,t9,20,21 Block 7, Lake Addition Project-Description: 8 Townhouses and One Apartment B. Discussions: 1. Open Storage 2. ~Zoning Ordinance - Section 4, B, 2 (see page 14)