Loading...
Minutes 03-14-78MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ME~ETING OF THE PLA~TING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, M~RCH 14, 1978 AT 7:30 P. M. PRESENT Simon Ryder, Chairman Col. Walter M. Trauger, Vice Chairman Ronald Arena Maril~n Huckle John Jameson Richard Lambert Garry Winter Carmen Annunziato, City Planner Chairman Ryder welcomed everyone and called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. Mo He introduced the members of the Board, City Planner, and Recording Secretary, He acknowledged the presence of Councilman Joe DeMarco and Reporter Sandy Wesley from the Boynton Beach News Journal in the audience. MINUTES Minutes of the Re.gular Meeting..of February 28, 1978 ~hairman Ryder read a letter from Mr. Howell, Building Offi- cial, requesting a correction in the minutes on Page 15. He referred to Mr. Annunziato's statement that the Board of Ad- justment, City Attorney and BUilding Official had recommended the building be allowed as proposed by Gulfstream Lumber Com- pany and advised that this was untrue as he did not make this recommendation. He has not in the past and will not in the future make any recommendations to any Board for approval or disapproval of any submittals. He does not feel it is proper for the Building Official to influence any Board. Mr. Annun- z~iato stated that he concurred and advised that it was a slip of the tongue on his part. He suggested stating reviewed or processed and they discussed how this would affect the remain- der of the paragraph. After discussion, it was agreed to delete "City Attorney and Building Official" and just leave in "Board of Adjustment~. M~. Annunziato referred to Page 17, paragraph five, and cor- rected the 25 to 30 to be just "1~'. Col. Trauger moved to approve the minutes of the Planning & Zoning Board meeting of February 28 as changed, seconded by Mr. Lambert. Motion carried 7mO. Minutes of the W0r~kshop Meeting of .March 8, 1978 Mrs. Huckle moved that the workshop meeting minutes of March 8 be approved as submitted, seconded by Mr. Winter. Motion carried 5-0 with Mr. Arena and Mr. Lambert abstaining. MINUTES PI~NNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TWO M_~RCH 14, 1978 OLD BUSINESS Chairman Ryder referred to the City Planner submitting a draft in accordance with suggestions made at our workshop meeting with regard to the limitation of antenna heights for review by the members of the Board and announced that this subject would be discussed at the March 28 meeting. Subdivisions Pre-Application (Tabled) Applicant: Riteco Development Company Legal Description: Acreage Location: Sections 17 & 20, Township 45 South, Range 43 East Project Name: Sandhill Chairman Ryder referred to the Board acting on this previously and advised that the City Council approved the applications for rezoning and annexation at their meeting last Tuesday. He stated that this pre-application is in accordance to the procedure for a subdivision and is preliminary to the master plan presentation. He requested the applicant to appear be- fore the Board and describe what he is seeking at this time. Mr. Arena made a motion to take this from the table, seconded by Mr. Winter. Motion carried 7-0. Mr. Bud Post, Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, appeared before the Board representing Riteco Development Company. He advised that they were present tonight to seek approval of the pre- application submission which requires a lot of information to be furnished prior to authorization for them to proceed with the master plan and plats. Most of the information has been submitted as part of the rezoning application. The principle document to be submitted tonight is a preliminary master plan containing the individual lots for the individual tracts and multi-family tracts. If approved, they will be able to pro- ceed with all the engineering and platting, etc. He then requested M~. Walter Collins to explain the presentation. Mr. Walter Collins appeared before the Board and showed a map of the master plan submitted with the rezoning applica- tion and a map of the sketch plan and explained how the areas were shown in more detail with lots and streets. He stat~ that the lots are 80 x 100 ft. and the street system is a sys- tem of loo~d streets and cul-de-sacs which they believe is the best design for a residential area in terms of providing 'for City services and not encouraging thru traffic. The total number of lots is 998 and the rezoning application totalled 1,095, so there are approximately 100 lots less based on the street design. He added that in the process of developing the detail, they may be able to pick up more MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD P~GE THR~E N~RCH 14, 1 978 lots. He explained that the plan was in conformance with requirements such as open space, lakes, mud other items approved with the rezoning. This has been reviewed by the City staff and he believes their comments were favorable. The other information required in the pre-application has been sub~mitted in the rezoning booklet such as the drainage concept, urban services, etc. This meets the requirements of the Subdivision Regulation for first submission. They will come back with a master plan submission for the total project and individual plats as each area is developed. Chairman Ryder asked if Mr. Annunziato had any further comments. M~. Annunziato stated that this preliminary plat is a function of the Subdivision Regulation and does not go to the City Council, but ends with this Board. It has been reviewed by the staff in its preliminary stage as required and there were no unfavorable comments. ~. Post added that they are seeking no variances or chm%ges, but have complied completely with the City Subdivision Regu- lations. Mx. Lambert referred to this coming before the Board again and Mr. Annunziato informed him there was one, more interven- ing step, which is the master plan submission which will be more specific and he explained. ~.. Annunziato stated that it was his recomz~endation that approval of this be subject to the ordinance to rezone and the ordinance to annex. Chairman Ryder clarified that the City Council ~a~ approved these ordinances on first reading, but final approval must be ~f~n by the Council. Mr. Post replied that they understood this procedure and added that they are working on final agreements with the School Board and County. Mr. Lambert made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board approve the Pre-Application for the Riteco Development Com- pany subject to final zoning and annexation, seconded by Mr. Winter. Motion carried 7-0. Rezo~ing Request~ Applicant: Mr. S. J. Jarvis (Tabled) Location: 900 S. W. 15th Avenue Legal Description: Acreage Project Description: To be developed under the uses permitted by P.I.D. Request: Rezone to Planned Industrial Development Dis- trict from R1-AA MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE MARCH 14, 1 978 Chairman Ryder referred to the two rezoning requests applied for by M~. jarvis being tabled at our meeting of February 14 and informed the audience that they pertained to the area between 15th and 23rd Avenues, the railroad west of 1-95 and the E-4 canal and are presently zoned R-1AA. He added that the City does not institute this action, but it is instituted by the ownersof the land who have this right and he told about the procedure for rezoning. The action taken by this Board is purely a recommendation and the final analysis willbe made by the City Council. He then explained the P.I.D. Ordi- nance and how it was an attempt to bring clean industry into the City with proper safeguards. Mr. Lar~bert moved to take the rezoning request for the change from R-1AA to Planned Industrial Development from the table, seconded by Mr. Arena. Under discussion, Mr. Lambert referred to there being a rumor that the applicant desired to talk be- fore having this removed from the table and stated he would like to hear from him. Chairman Ryder replied that he pre- ferred to have it removed~ from the table first. Motion c~- ried 7-0. Chairman Ryder announced that there was also another prDposal requesting rezoning from R-1AA to C-3 for the area fronting on 15th Avenue, but this is a request for the area behind that running to 23rd Avenue. He told about approximately three hours being spent at the last meeting on this matter with everyone being given an opportunity to speak. He stated that a petition was presented with approximately 900 signatures opposed to this rezoning chauge and also, the City Council and the Board have received about 80 letters in opposition. This is a continuation of that hearing. He then requested the applicant to address the Board. Mr. S. J. Jarvis, 220 S. E. 2nd Avenue, Pompano Beach, ap- peared before the Board and advised that he was the owner, trustee of record representing others for this property. He referred to the Board's requests at the previous meeting to present a number of ite~ for consideration and advised that they attempted to do this at quite a bit of expense; however, as of 10 o'clock this morning, the material was not available and he cannot present it to the Board. He respect- fully requests this item to be tabled for another 30 days, so they can make a decent presentation. Chairman Ryder re- ferred to the information requested and the feeling being that a month would be sufficient to obtain it and Mr. Jarvis agreed, but advisedthat the information has not been forth- coming. He added that he was not capable of gathering the information requested and has to rely on other sources. Chairman Ryder asked if he intended to follow through on this and Mr. Jarvis replied that he absolutely did as he has had the property for eight years and wants to do some- thing with it. MINUTES PLAITING & ZONING BOARD P~GE FIVE M&RCH 14, 1978 ¥~o Lambert referred to the lengthy discussion at the meet- ing a month ago aud stated that they could continue with a lengthy discussion tonight, but without the information re- quested, it will be tabled again. He cannot make a recommen- dation without the information. Co!. Trauger moved to table this application until the April !1 meeting, seconded by Mr. Arena. Motion carried 6-1 with Mr. Winter dissenting. M~. Annunziato announced that this would be continued on April 11 and Chairman Ryder added that this was formal no- ti~e that the heariug would be continued at that time. Applicant: Mr. S. J. Jar¥is (Tabled) Location: 900 S. W. 15th Avenue Legal Description: Acreage Project Description: To be developed under uses permitted by C-3 zone Request: Rezone to C-3 from R-1AA ~. Lambert moved that the Jarvis' request for a change in zoning from R-1AA to C-3 be taken from the table, seconded by Col. Trauger. Motion carried 7-0. Chairman Ryder requested comments from the applicant and M~. Jarvis replied they were the same as the same figures will apply regarding the economic studies and traffic, etc. It will have to come in as a package. Col. Trauger moved that the change of zoning request from R-1AA to C-3 be tabled to the April 11 meeting, seconded by Mr. Lambert. Under discussion, Mr. Arena questioned the tabling of this particular portion of the request as the applicant has disassociated this from the P.I.D. He be- lieves this must stand on its own and it is a separate re- quest. He does not think there will be a major traffic im- pact on this request. Col. Trauger replied that it is all part of the same area an~ he believes whatever holdsfor one will hold equally trus to the other. Mrs. Huckle added that since the applicant has requested a delay, she believes we should honor his request. Mr. Arena stated at the last meeting, the applicant said this was taken out of the P~.D. because if it was turned down, they wanted it to stand alone. We considered it as one package, but the applicant made it clear that it was not a package. Chairman Ryder agreed; however, he still feels this matter would be difficult to present at this time if Mr. Jarvis feels he does not have the backup information. He agrees they are separate; how- ever, he feels if the applicant is not prepared to make any further presentation in this regard, he does not know how we can arbitrarily say he must do it. Mr. Arena asked if MIh~UTES P ~LAN~ING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SIX ~RCH 14, 1978 any information was requested on this particular zoning re- quest and Chairman Ryder referred to the request for further statistics and stated presumably it applied to this as well as to the P.I.D. ~. Jarvis informed them that it was his understanding from the people gathering this information that they are doing so on the basis of both oarcels to present an economic study from C-3 as well as from-P.i. Do He assumed since they were discussed in the same discussion, it is a package even though it is two applications. He is not pre- pared to present anything for C-3. Mr. Annunziato referred to requesting traffic information and stated that without that specific information concerning the impact on 15th Ave., he does not think we ~an move ahead intelligently. Chairman Ryder stated that he thought we had prov~ided adequate time, but apparently we did not. He does not think it would be fair to~ ignore the request of the applicant in this particu- lar case. We should have all the information in regard to both matters when coming to a final decision. Motion car- ried 5-2 with Mr. Arena and Mr~ Winter dissenting. ~r. Annunziato announced that this would be continued on April 11 and Chairman Ryder added that it was expected to be concluded on April 11 and explained that most matters are usually concluded the same night as presented. Mr. Jarvis asked if this would follow on the City Council agenda a week later and Chairman Ryder r~plied that this was the normal procedure. He requested the members of the audience to please inform everyone interested that these matters will be before the Board on April 11. Chairman Ryder then declared a recess in view of the people exiting. The meeting was reconvened at 8:20 P. M. NEW BUS I~S£ Site P_la~ Approval_ Applicant: Walter Holly Location: N. E~ 3rd Street Legal Description: Lots 93,94,95, Arden Park Project Description: Store Buildings with accessory storage Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that this plan is presented following the abandonment request recommended by the Board and approved by the City Council. It is a five unit store and accessory storage building located on N. E. 3rd Street between N. E. 6th and 7th Avenues. This plan has been re- viewed by the staff. 0nly one comment was made and that is the plan must meet the handicapped requirements° The lack in comments owes to the continuing of flow of information from him to the developer, He referred to the C-4 Zone pro- hibiting uses for warehouses and storage buildings except when MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BO~RD PAGE SEVEN ~RCH 14, 1978 accessory uses and clarified that this building cannot be used as a warehouse, but a business with accessory storage could have an office with storage to the rear. He referred to Bay 1 on the pla~ being a preview of what could occur or how it could be occupied with an office in the front and storage to the rear. He clarified that this accessory stor- age is permitted. The me~nbers reviewed the plans and discussed how the layout of the bays could vary. Mr. John Pagliaro, 3546 S. Lake Drive, appeared before the Board and advised that he was the contractor for M~. Walter Holly. He explained how the floor plan shown was a typical arrangement, but would change according to the business needs. Chairman Ryder referred to the owner being present to give exact answers to questions and stated that the plan was just typical for all the bays. M~. Annunziato advised that the parking was provided subject to the general business regulation and explained that he did not believe this ample parking would have been provided if block storage was the purpose. In order to have a reasonable return on the land, it would have to have more than storage. Also, there is the assurance that no license will he issued unless in conformance with the Zoning Code. Mr. Pagliaro agreed that the licenses would regulate the businesses and added that the partitions would be subject to the Building Official's approval. They discussed further the actual use of the buildings and how it could be limited. Mrs. Huckle then referred to the application stating store bUildings and pointed out that this was not included in the categorized uses under C-4 zoning. She feels the application is very non-specific. ~. Annunziato suggested that the motion include only those permitted and condition uses enumerated in the C-4 classi- fication for clarification. The use of the building was discussed further. Mr. Lambert made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend to the City Council the approval of the Walter Holly Project site plan subject to the staff recommendations and noting the building will~ be occupied by those permitted or conditional uses in the C-4 Zone. M~s. Huckle seconded the motion. ~Motion carried 7-0. Applicant: Nelson Lopez, M. D. Location: 230 S. E. 23rd ~.venue Legal Description: Lot 9, Plat of High Point, Plat Book 23, Page 225 Project Description: Medical Office MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE EIGHT F~RCH 14, 1 978 Mr. ~nnunziato informed the Board that the plan was for a doctor's office in the C-1 Zone located at 230 S. Eo 23rd Avenue. He referred to the staff comments and advised that the Building Department has required the handicapped require- ments to be met, a 6 ft. wall be required on the lot line, and the building is in the fire zone. ~. Lambert asked what was meant by the fire zone and Mr. Annunziato replied that he was not entirely familiar with the specifications and regula- tions, but it has to do with wood used in construction and he suggests that the applicant contact the Building Depart- ment for further clarification. He continued with the engi- neers have required paving and drainage plans and the p~rking to be built according to standards. He has noted that side- walks are to be constructed on 23rd ~venue. He added that there are residences on both sides and to the rear and this would require a wall on both sides and the rear. The members reviewed the plan. Col. Trauger referred to people being notified about this living within 400 ft. and Mr. Annunziato informed him this was not required unless a variance is requested. He pointed out that the entra~ce would be changed to face on the east and explained how the front elevation and interior would be altered considerably. He added that six parking spaces were required and nine were provided. It is his recommendation that the plan be approved subject to the staff recommendations. Mr. Leo Blair, 4477 Maurice Drive, Delray Beach, appeared before the Board and advised that he wa~ the contractor and introduced Dr. Nelson Lopez. ~o La~bert asked if he rea- lized only one doctor would be allowed for this ~ize build- ing and Dr. Lopez replied affirmatively, Mr. Lambert ques- tioned the determination on the number of parking spaces and Mr. Annunziato informed him that the Zoning Ordinance stipu- lates six per doctor which includes patrons and employees. ~s. Huckle further explained how the parking element was researched when the code was prepared. M~. Lambert asked if the applicant had any comments about the staff comments and ~. Blair replied that they would meet the requirements. Chairman Ryder referred to how this site would look with a 6 ft~ concrete wall on three sides and ~. Lambert referred to this subject being on the agenda for discussion tonight and suggested that they possibly keep in touch and find out what is decided regarding the wall. M~s~ Huckle asked if there was more than one entrance and M~o Blair pointed out that there was a second one on the west side ~iting from the bathroom° MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE Nitre M~RCH 14, 1978 Mm. Winter asked if the parking area was wide enough for cars to get by when cars 'are entering and ~. Annunziato informed him it was 10 ft. M~o Lambert referred to there being ade- quate space to turn around in the parking area and this was discussed further. Mr. Annunziato informed them that the parking meets the code requirements for depth and width. ~s. Huckle also suggested that consideration be given to including handicapped requirements in our code. Mr. Arena referred to the wall and asked i~_:it would create a safety hazard and Mr. Annunziato replied that the west view would be relatively unobstructed and added that the wall could not be more than 4 ft. high in the setback area. Mr. Lambert asked if there was an easement in the rear and Mr. Annunziato informed him there was~a 5 ft. easement. Mr. Lambert commented that the wall could not be built on top of the easement. Col~ Trauger made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend approval of the site plan for Dr. Nelson Lopez at 230 S. E. 23rd Avenue, subject to the Technical Review Board comments as listed on the plan, seconded by Mrs. Huckle. Motion carried 7-0. Applicant: Conrad Pickle Location: 2602 N. Federal Highway, corner of Potter & U. S. 1 Legal Description: Lots 68 & 69, Lakeside Gardens Project Description: Artist Studio Mr. Annunziato informed the Board that this plan encompasses a small building on a substandard lot and a variance was granted to the applicant by the Board of Adjustment for reduc- tion of the lot area and reduction of the front yard setback. He read the staff comments noting that the Building Official requires the handicapped requirements to be met with the park- ing to be two 10 x 20 ft. spaces and one 12 x 20 ft. space. The Engineering Department requires paving and drainage plans and the parking to be constructed according to standards. The Utility Department notes that a~ must be cut into the main east of the manhole and service run to the lot. He has commented that it must be per the variance. M~. Conrad Pickle, 500 So W. 16th Street, appeared before the Board. Chairman Ryder asked if he was aware of the stipula- tions noted by the Technical Review Board and ~. Pickle re- plied that he just hes~d them. Chairman Ryder asked if the parking situation had been delin- eated and Mr. Annunziato explained that the size of the park- ing spaces would have to be increased to meet requirements. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TEN M~RCH 14, 1978 Chairman Ryder referred to there being a small building to the east on Potter Road and asked if that remained and Mr. Pickle replied affirmatively and added that it was a garage and is located 2" on his property. ¥~. Annunziato asked if the building would set 15 or 20 ft. back from U. S. 1 and Mr. Pickle explained how the lot was on an angle and at the north end, it would be t5 ft. from U. So 1, but at the south end, it is further away. ¥~ Annunziato explained that in order to accommodate the two 10 x 20 ft. parking spaces, the 2 ft. landscaping strip would have to be eliminated adjacent to the par~ng lot on the east or the building reduced in size. ~. Lambert re- ferred to the possibility of relocating the parking and Mr. Pickle told about trying different plans, but not being sat- isfactory. He referred to the size of the building and asked if two parking spaces would be adequate and Mr. Annun- ziato computed the parking and agreed that two parking spaces would be sufficient. He explained how these Pa~king spaces could be noted. ~. Lambert referred to handicapped people only being allowed to.use the handicapped space and the other would be used by the owner, thus there would be no parking for public use. The parking situation was discussed further and whether there was a necessity for a total of two parking spaces or three. Mr. Lambert made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend to the City Council the approval of the site plan for Conrad Pickle's Artist Studio subject to the staff com- ments and recommendations, seconded by ~s. Huc~e. Under discussion, Mr. Arena requested clarification whether two or three sp~ces~were being recommended. ~. Lambert amended his motion to clarify'that the parking spaces required are to be one 12 x 20 ft. handicapped parking space and one 10 x 20 ft. regular parking space, seconded by Mrs. Huckle. Motion car- ried 6-1 with ~o Arena dissenting. N~. Lambert further explained how building on this small lot was limited and with the variance, approval had to be given. Determination of Parking Requirements for St. Mark's Church Mr. ~nnunziato informed the Board that St. Mark's Parish is proposing to build a recreation building attached to their existing school building. When it came time to review the plan, it was determined that we were not able to determine the correct number of parking spaces for a recreation build- ing because it is not covered in the code and it was the applicant's wishes to seek a variance for any additional parking required. When it came time to write the wording MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE ELEVEN MARCH 14, 1978 for the variance request, the Building Department could not determine what the request Would be for. He read the proce- dure outlined in Section 11 for parking. He explained how currently there is a requirement of 145 parking spaces based on the information provided by St. Markts for the employees, square footage, students of driving age, and place of assem- bly~ On the plan submitted, parking is shown for 156 auto- mobiles of which 145 are utilized, leaving a surplus of 11. The staff recommendation is to apply the total square foot- age of the proposed building under the Southern Standard Building Code which is based on an occupancy maximum of 20 sq. feet per person for non-fixed seating and this would per- mit 192 persons. Applying ene parking space per four persons would result in 48 parking spaces required. BaSed on this, a variance would be required for 37 parking spaces. The staff requests that this 20 sq. feet per person for non-fixed seating in a recreation building be recommended to the Council so a parking figure can be applied to this proposal. Mr. Lambert asked if it had been taken into consideration that the recreation building would probably not be in use at the same time the church facilities are? Mr. Annunziato explained how there had been similar arguments, but advised that the ordinance provides parking for each use. Mrs. Huckle added that the code did state that various uses must be computed separately.. Col. Trauger asked if there was room for the additional 37 spaces on the property and Mx. Annunziato replied that there was the potential. Ma. Lambert asked how a variance could be granted for parking when parking is not established and Mr. Annunziato agreed and stated that it must be established what is required. Mr. Lambert asked why a site plan was not presented and added that St. Mark's did not have a problem to get relief from yet~ Mrs. Huckle referred to this possibly being an expansion of the code requirement as it maY be needed in similar types of uses and M~. Lambert replied that if this is a proposed zon- ing ordinance change, public hearings would be required. M~. Annunziato clarified that he was just requesting a method for computating the parking for this use. Mr. Lambert referred to a site plan nor an application being submitted and Mr. Annunziato clarified that an application was going to be submitted to the Board of Adjustment, but they could not determine the number of parking spaces for requesting the ~ariance and must hawe this procedure. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TWEL~ ~L~RCH 14, 1978 Mr. Arena made a motion that the Planning & Zoning Board recommend to the City Council that in instances where no formula for computing the required parking spaces exists in the City Code, that we refer to the Southern Standard Building Code for non-fixed seating which is 20 sq. feet Der person £.or recreation bnildings. Col. Trauger seconded the motion. ~nder discussion~ Mr. Lambert stated he was in disagreement ~d referred to the applicant not being put in a hardship position and he does not think a permanent re- quirement should be set. He referred to Paragraph W on Page 46 and stated the intent was obviously to review site plans indiviS.ually to consider the specific uses. He fur- ther explained how the assembly parking in this particular case was only used one day a week and he feels consideration should be given to the same parking being used for the recrea- tion building. Mrs° Huckle questioned the basis for the parking requirements and F~o Annunziato explained how it was figured by St. Mark's. Mr. Lambert referred again to there being no recreation functions when there are church or school functions. M~. Arena asked how an applicant could present a site plan and not show the parking required if we do not have a formula to compute the parking required and M~. Lambert replied that the Only thingthe applicant can do is show what he feels is adequate for the building. Mr. Annunziato suggested separating St. Mark's from what we are trying to derive and ~tated if a ratio is adopted, St. Mark's still has options to submit a plan and not show the addi- tional parking and apply for a variance. Chairman Ryder stated he could not see how a new building could be built without additional parking provided and Mr. Lambert replied that additional parking may not be required in this case. He suggested that St. Mark's submit a site plan for the Board's review and recommendation. We can recommend addi- tional parking if we think it is necessary and the Council e~n act on that decision, If a variance is required, then they can make application. Mr. Lambert again referred to not having a site plan to review and Mr. Annunziato informed him that a preliminary plan had been submitted proposing a 38 x 40 ft. building for recreation purposes with no addi- tional parking provided. Chairman Ryder clarified that the request was to set a standard. They discussed further the category of uses, present parking at St. Mark's, etc. Mr. Winter suggested following Mr. Arena's motion using this as a recommended procedure for determining parking and at the time of the submission of an application with a site plan, we can refer to this formula and make a recommendation to the City Council. Mr. La~ber~ replied that in that case, the parking requirements would be listed and we would have no choice. ~&r. Arena suggested using this on a preliminary basis to determine the number of parking spaces. Mr. Lambert referred to there being recreation buildings all over the City and questioned how the parking was determined for them. He added that a variance could not be applied for MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THIRTEEN MARCH 14, 1978 in this case since a hardship was not imposed and an appli- cation has not been denied. Mr. Annunziato informed him that an application was submitted to construct a recreation building without additional parking and it was denied by the Building Department as they do not think it is appropriate to construct a building without parking. Mr. Lambert stated that based on the Code Book, the Building Department could not come up with a valid number to tell the applicant he could not obtain a permit. Mr. Annunziato clarified that they were trying to determine the number. M~. Lambert asked if there was a particular reason why this site plan did not come through with this stipulation made under staff comments? If it had, then there would be a hardship to go to the Board ofI Adjustment. By passing this motion, we will be creating a hardship for St. Mark's. Mrs. Huckle stated that their use~ was not listed, but it is covered under Paragraph W. They discussed further the basis for~ adequate parking, the procedure to be followed, etc. Mr. Arena suggested using this particular formula so the plans can get from the Build- ing Department to the Planning & Zoning Board and we would the option of making a recommendation to the City Court- Mr. Lambert referred to the code stating all other uses will be determined by the Planning & Zoning Board re- garding parking and a recommendation will be made to the City Council. He su ests the normal procedure be followed with a site being made to this Board. He contends that the ~t should not have turned they go to the Board plan to be sub- mitted to us and have us make recommendations to the City Council based on the Code Book. Possibly in the future, we may use some formulas from the Southern Standard Building Code, but he does not think this~is the time to do it. He requests that this application take the normal channels as he feels this recommendation will be a change toithe Code Book. ~. Annunziato stated they were considering it as clarification on places of assembly. Mr. Lambert stated that he believes Paragraph W was included when the book was prepared so input could be given to the Planning & Zoning Board and City Council for decisions to be made in instances like this. Mr. Arena asked if there possibly were other places within the Code where there are not formulas for com- puting parking spaces where this might work to someone's advantage and M~. Lambert replied that he still oontended this would be a zoning code change as it would do awsy with Paragraph W. Mr. ~rena then withdrew his motion based on some valid points made by Mr. Lambert and he explained. After discussion, Col. Trauger then withdre~ his~ second. Mr. Lambert suggested that this application follow the normal procedure and made a motion that this applicant submit his plan to the Planning & Zoning Board for recommendation to the City Council based on what he thinks is n~es~sary for parking for this building and the staff can make recommenda- tions. Mrs. Huckle seconded the motion. Under idiscussion, ~I NU TES PL~NNiNG & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOURTEEN MARCH 14, 1978 F~. Arena asked if something should be included regarding future instances were parking cannot be computed requesting the plan to be submitted and Mx. Lambert replied that this is stated in the Code Book. Motion carried 6-1 with Chair- man Ryder dissenting. Buffer Walls Chairman Ryder referred to buffer walls being covered in the code on Page 16, Section L, and teld about this coming about because of a howling center being built in the C-3 area being adjacent to R-1AA and an adequate barrier being required. However, tonight a plan was presented for an office in the C-1 zone and the wall was required on all three sides and he suggests that this be considered for further clarification. He feels there should be a barrier, but it should be clarified on the type of commercial zoning we are talking about. Possibly residential use could be eli- minated and just residential district stated. Mr. Lambert suggested adding upon the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Board and approval of the City Council. They dis- cussed how residential use was probably the particular mat- ter to be considered~and whether it would be appropriate to give the Planning & Zoning Board the latitude to make the decision. Mrs. Huckle suggested that each commercial zoning district be considered without making a blanket recommenda- tion. Col. Trauger suggested requiring a 6 ft. solid con- crete masonry wall or vegetative buffer as determined by review of the site plan by the Planning & Zoning Board. There was discussion about this and Mrs. Huckle suggested that things not be left open to interpretation, but that it be indicated specifically wherever possible. She re- ferred to the C-1 zone being the most restrictive, but suggested that the other zones be considered further whether a wall would be required and this was discnssed. Expressions were given with having the Board have the latitude to make the decision with consideration being given to the location, adjacent districts, etc. Mr. Annunziato referred to there being the possibility of the procedure being changed for site plan review and ~. Arena replied that where there is a wall in question, the plan must be reviewed by this Board. Mr. Winter referred to Dr. Lopez' case and explained how a wall may be desirable in the rear only and Mr. Annunziato explained how there was the problem of the easement in the rear to be considered in this case. He added that he thinks there are certain uses in C-2 which may de~nd a wall and they discussed further how this should apply to the various commercial zones. Discussion also followed about the neces- sity for a wall versus a hedge. Mr. Lambert suggested that the decision of what should be installe8 be given to the Community Appearance Board and Mr. Annunziato replied that not only the aesthetics must be considered, but the uses and traffic. The discussion MINUTES PL&NNtNG & ZONING BOARD PAGE FIFTEEN ~&~RCH 14, 1978 then went back to the Planning & Zoning Board being given the latitude to make the decision. Col. Trauger suggested amending the C-1 section only to give it a try with requiring a cement wall or vegetative buffer as determined by the site plan presente~ to the Planning & Zoning Board. ~M. Winter referred to the possibility of a wall being required in this zone in the rear where a resi- dential district abuts and Mm. Lambert agreed that he would not be in favor of Col. Trauger's suggestion in this case. Mr. Winter made a motion to eliminate the words: "residential use". Mm. Jameson referred to the easements to be considered and Mr. Lambert agreed and explained how there would be an unkept area as the result. He also referred to giving con- sideration to an easement being dug up and the result to the foundation of the wall. Mr. Annunziato suggested that the site plan procedure be deter- mined first ~before giving the Board latitude. M~s. Huckle suggested also making a distinction between industrial and commercial to some extent. After further discussion, Mr. Lambert stated he did not think the Board was prepared to make a decision tonight even though he would like to give Dr. Lopez some relief. However, he does not think there will be any problem with~obtaining re- lief from the Board of Adjustment. Chairman Ryder requested the members to give further consideration to this matter. OTHER BUSINESS M~. Winter suggested that a distinction be made on the antenna heights as we have the height of the antenna, but not the area of the base defined. Chairman Ryder suggested postponing this discussion until March 28. _Mrs. Huckle referred to giving comments on the site plan re- view and Chairman Ryder suggested that the recommendations for the procedure be discussed at the March 28 meeting in preparation for the meeting with the Technical Review Board. ADJOURNMENT M~s. Huckle made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Lambert. Motion carried 7-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at ~ o.~5 P. ~. Respectfully submitted, ~uzanne M. Kruse' Recording Secretary (Four Tapes) AGENDA PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD Regular Meeting DATE: TIME: PLACE: March 14th, 1978 7:30 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall e 1. Acknowledgement of Members and Visitors. 2. Reading and Approving of Minutes. 3. Announcements, 4. Communications. 5. Old Business: A. Subdivisions: 1. Pre-Application (Tabled) Applicant': Riteco Development Company Legal Description: Acreage Location: Sections.17 & 20, Township 45.South, Range 43 East Project Name:- SANDHILL B. Rezoning' Request: Applicant: Mr. S. J. Jarvis (Tabled) Location: 900 S.W. 15th Avenue Legal Description: acreage Project Description: to be developed under the uses permitted by P.I.D. Request: Rezone to Planned Industrial Development District from R1-AA Applicant: Mr. S. J. Jarvis (Tabled) Location: 900 S.W. 15th Avenue Legal Description: acreage Project Description: to-be developed under uses permitted by C-3 zone. Request: Rezone to C-3 from R1-AA New Business: A. Site Plan Approval: Applicant: Walter Holly Location: N.~3rd Street Legal Description: Lots 93,94, 95, Arden .Park Project Description: Store Buildings with accessory storage Applicant? Nelson Lopez, M.D. Location: 230 S.E. 23rd Avenue Legal Description : Lot 9, Plat of High Point, Plat Book 23, Page 225 Project Description: Medical Office Applicant: Conrad Pickle Location~ 2602 No. Federal Highway, corner of Potter Ave & U.S.-#1 L~gal Description: Lots 68 & 69, Lakeside Gardens Project ~escription: Artist Studio Planning and Zoning Agenda March 14th, 1978 Page 2 Discussion: 1. Determination of parking requirement for Saint Mark's Church. 2. Buffer'Walls.