Loading...
Minutes 02-24-76MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING B©ARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1976 AT 7:30 P. M. PRESENT Joseph T. Kelly, Chairman Richard Lambert Enrico Rossi Simon Rjr de r Oris Walker Garry Winter ABSENT Fred Kostner, Vice Chairman E. E. Howell, Bldg. Official (Excused) Chairman Kelly called the meeting to order at 7:55 P. M. and ann announced it was delayed awaiting the arrival of a quorum of the members. He then introduced the members present and added that Mr. Kostner was excused because of illness. Minutes of February 10~ 1976 Mr. Ryder referred to Page 4, second paragraph under discus- sion, and stated it should be: did not meet the "R-3" require- ments. Mr. Walker made a motion to adopt the minutes as pre- sented with the necessary corrections, seconded by Mx. Ryder. Motion carried 6-0. Discussion of Non-conforming Uses~ Lots, Buildings & Structures Chairman Kelly referred to the members having received a retyped copy of the Non-conforming Uses, Lots, Buildingsand Structures in the mail and suggested discussing same. Mr. Walker stated he did have a chance to read it over, but believes they should have a representative from the Building Department present to discuss it. Chairman Kelly informed him that he did talk to Mr. Howell, but his wife is ill and if they need him, he would be glad to come. Mr. Walker pointed out that they are the ones who will have to enforce this. Chairman Kelly informed him that ~. Howell did go over this before the last meeting and approved everything as it was. Mr. Winter pointed out that Mr. Howell had approved and in~&lled and approved it and he did not see any reason for him to be present. Chairman Kelly agreed, but Mr. Walker explained why it would be advantageous to have him present. After some discussion, Chairman Kelly agreed to call him. Discussion of R-3 .Requirements Pertaining to C-3 Zoning Mr. Ryder referred to Page 26, Section 6, and referred to the request from the City Council to clarify R-3 requirements in C-3 zoning. He read Section ~ and suggested putting an aster- isk in front and at the bottom and stating that multi-family MINUTES ~ANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE T~J 0 FEBRUARY 24, 1976 residential should conform with R-3 requirements (See Section 5, Pa~agEaph G-2). Chairman Kelly explained further that this was done on Page 22 with adding a Section C regarding ~duplex d~e~lings. Mr. Ryder agreed and added that possibly they could also add a g,Not~j~ D on Page 27. ~. Rossi pointed out that R-3 allowed single family dwellings and duplexes and he did not think this was desirable in C-3o Chairman Kelly suggested the reference should be to see Section 5, Paragraph G-2a, which would just be the building and site regulations. Mr. Howell pointed out that it did not allow single family, but only referred to multi-family residential to comply with the setbacks. This was discussed further and then Mr. Rossi pointed out that with having it comply with building and site regulations, they had overlooked density. Mr. Ryder agreed. Mr. Lambert then referred to allowing other kinds of building in commercial zones, as long as it was upgrading and gave examples. This was discussed further and M~. Howell suggested that they go through the entire book and have legal advice. Chairman Kelly agreed and added that this has been discussed and they plan to get together with the City Council. He sug- gested that they straighten out the C-3 section as directed by the City Council' and take care of the remainder when going though the book. Mr. Howell referred to sections which could be contested and suggested going through it section by section. He explained how things had come up which were no~ specified and informed them that he would send a memo to the Board for consideration when the book was reviewed. Mr. Ryder made a motion to recommend to the City Council that the following be added on Page 26 under E: "Multi-family resi- daatial shall conform with R-3 requirements for density and building and site regulations (See Section 5, Paragraph G-2a). Mr. Winter seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. Discussion of Meeting Notice Mr. Walker referred to the members having previously received notices and phone calls advising of the meeting and having received none, he thought there was no meeting tonight. M~. Howell replied that he could send a blank agenda stating there will be a meeting. Mr. Walker stated that if there is nothing o~ the agenda, he doesn't thinktthey should meet and they should meet other than on Tuesday night for workshop sessions. Chairman Kelly i~formed him that the Planning & Zoning Board will meet every second and fourth Tuesday, unless the Chairman calls to advise that there will not be a meeting. He added that naturally if they get an agenda showing something on it, that would be sufficient notice and Mr. Howell has been good in getting the agendas out in plenty of time. Mr. Howell stated that when he didn't have anything, it was up to them whether they wanted a blank agenda mailed. Mr. Ryder replied MI~TES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THREE ~BRUARY 24, 1 976 that they do want notice when there is a public hearing. Mr. HoWell informed them that there would be things on the agenda and told about preliminary plansbbeing submitted by Milnor. M~. Rossi referred to discussion at a previous meeting regard- ing this Board's involvement in site plan review. He asked if they would stillbe reviewing site plans and if anything had been changed? Mr. Howell referred to land being properly zoned and all requirements being met and questioned ~hy' this Board would want to look at it? Mr. Ryder questioned whether plans for shopping centers, such as Athans, would come before the Board? Mr. Howell replied: no and explained how mainly they would be concerned with something like a condominium or subdivision with lots, streets, etc. ~. Ryder stated he thought they should be informed of what development is taking place in the City. Mr. Howell referred to the Board making the regulations and designating the zoning. He has no objec- tion to informing the Board what has come in, but if it meets zoning, isaallowed in the area, a plan is presented, a vari- ance is not required, etc., he believes they are holding upaa builder two or three weeks for a permit. Mr. Ryder pointed out that if it did not come to this Board, the City Council also did not review it and he believes they may want to be informed about things such as this. Chairman Kelly replied that he feels the City Council will verify this. Mr. Howell informed them that he had written a letter to the City Council regarding this procedure and he has been given informal appro- val. He has auggested this as the builders have had problems and it has caused bad relations with the Building Department. Mr. Lambert stated that they must sit down and go through this~ as there are certain things that should come before this Board and the City Council. Mr. Lambert then gave the example of a shopping center meet- ing requirements and there being the possibility of it abut- ting a residential area with no buffer provided. This was discussed further and how things may not be spelled out in t~he book. Mr. Howell informed them that things must be spelled out in the book to make an applicant do it. He then told about the issuance of c/o's based on CAB approval and _h°w th~. requirements~. ~ ~ ~ ~. _ . of the CAB were. questioned at times. ~ ~/?/? ~ Mr. Howell then continued with explaining how plans had pre- viously go~e through the TRB, CAB and Planning & Zoning Board which took approximately four weeks. He also explained how it could take a lot longer if something was not approved and told about a plan four months old. Discussion of Non-conforming Uses~ Lots~ Buildings & Structures MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR FEBRUARY 24, 1976 ~. Walker asked if M~r. Howell had any recommendations, since he must use it. Mr. Howell replied that he did go over this with Chairman Kelly. He is no legal authority, but can tell about things he has been confronted with in the Building Department. He referred to a house being non-conforming in the front by 3" and according to the book, an addition to the rear cannotbbe made even if it conforms. He believes they are creating a hardship by this. He thinks they should be able to build onto a non-conforming building, as long as the new building conforms. This was discussed at length and Chairman Kelly read Section 11.4.1 for clarification. Mr. Lambert also dr~.w an example of a house being non-conforming on one side with excess room on the other side. It was discussed how such cases must apply to the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Lambert then told about a subdivision being 98% built and how the new zoning map made these homes non-conforming. Mr. Howell agreed that this caused a hardship. He continued that their work should be do~a on new subdivisions. M~. Lambert also referred to the possibility of a next-door lot being available, but almost impossible to buy. Mr. Ryder also told about Golfview Harbour and how screened porcheses had been added. Mr. Howell stated that the Board of Adjust- ment should be this Board. Most of their decisions are zoning decisions. He does not see how the Board of Adjustment can overrul& regulations made by this Board. Chairman Kelly continued with reading Sections 11.3 and 11.3.1. He referred to the lot Mr. Lambert mentioned and stated it was already recorded and Mr. Lambert replied: no, in the Laurel Hills and Glen Arbor areas, most of the vacant lots were non-conforming before this code was changed. Mr. Lambert referred to 11.1 and the phrase "discourage their survival" and he explained how this covered many properties in this town. Mr. Winter agreed and suggested omitting this. Mr. Howell referred to Boca Raton and how they have a rigid code, but they have a good looking town because they planned it before they started. However, where they have places that are 5~ built up and 10% of the remaining lots are be- tween houses, he doesn't see how they can change it. They must consider what a man can do with the lot. They must look at the old partoof Boynton Beach. It is there and it is going to be. there a long time.. They must look at what is coming ahead. It is hard to be fair to people and try to re-vamp the town. It is almost impossible. Also, they don't want any downgrading. He doesn't know the answer or if this is worded right, but believes a lawyer should look it over. Mm. Winter referred to 50 ft. lots and not being able to build. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE F~E FEBRUARY 24, 1976 Mr. Lambert stated they must get something in the nature of a non-conforming ordinance through and as quickly as possi- ble. They must get some relief. He has some sections under- lined and would like to discuss them further. Chairman Kelly asked if they were in agreement to eliminate t~is phrase? Mr. Winter agreed. Mr. Walker replied that he didn,t want to go through the whole thing tonight. He would rather get some legal help on this. Mr. Ryder agreed to take out the phrase. Mr. Rossi suggested letting the attorney figure out whether this phrase has some special intent. Chairman Kelly agreed that perhaps it would be better to go through the hands of a lawyer and let him point out things. ~. Howell asked if they were allowed tohhave legal advice and Chairman Kelly replied: yes and he has been trying to meet with the new City Attorney, but he has been quite busy. Mr. Howell suggested telling him the intent that they don~t want non-conforming structures to be made more non-conforming and let him phrase it. ~. Howell asked if they were going to have a planner work with the Board and Mr. Ryder replied that they have been talking about this. Mr. Walker told about the several planners they have had in the past. Mr. Howell informed them that be is not a planner. He can tell them about pro- blems that he encounters. Mr. Walker continued with telling about their ~xperience with previous planners. Mr. Howell stated he would li~ to see them reach some agree- ment tonight regarding this section. Chairman Kelly explained that thisddocument was prepared by Mr. Smoot and some addi- tions were inserted. He thinks they should get legal advice on what Mr. Smoot prepared. Mr. Rossi agreed there might be some legal aspects and the attorney should review it and possi- bly also some technical aspects. He thinks Mr. Howell should have input on this as it deals with the Building Official and the problems he will have to contend with. He suggested dis- cussing ~. Lambert's comments and then turning it over to the attorney. Mr. Lambert read Section 11.2.3 and questioned the time period stated. They talked about this and discussed several examples of how it would be applicable. Mr. Howell agreed it should be checked for legality. Mr. Lambert then referred to Section 11.3 and questioned properties which were not conforming before this was adopted? M~. Ryder replied that he didn't think they should go into this and should apply themselves to what became non-conforming by the recent zoning code. Mr. Lambert referred to a lot dis- cussed previously and Chairman Eelly pointed out that this was non-conforming in the beginning. Mr. Lambert summarized that MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SIX FEBRUARY 24, 1 976 there were probably just a few and these should be handled by the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Ryder agreed and pointed out that the greater problem is hardships incurred with the last zoning ordinance. ~. Lambert read Section 11.3.1 and questioned if this re- ferred to the transfer of o~nership or legal platting? Mr. Rossi replied that it could be either of these conditions and Mr. Walker agreed. Mr. Howell clarified they were pro- tecting a man who might have bought it for a certain use. Mr. Lambert clarified that in reading it in its entirety, ownership has nothing to do with the property and it does not make any difference unless they talk about a subdivision or record of land. Mr. Rossi agreed. Mr. Lambert continued with explaining that the agreement for the deed should not be here and F~. Rossi agreed that it has to do with the transfer of title. ~o Ryder stated he thought this was a legitimate question and thinks it is important that it is a lot of re- cord. Mr. Lambert read Section 11.4.2 and referred to the 5~ per the Palm Beach County Tax Appraiser and stated this could mean about 10 to 25% of the actual valUe. He explained fur- ther. He strongly disagrees with this, but does not know what measurement could be used. Chairman Kelly informed him that he thinks ME. Smoot was working on Mr. Reid's statement that eve.~~g~3~s~s~ssed at 10~. He has yet to see an asses~~~-;- -:'*/~i'--~ 1~-~-~5o to 6~. Mr. Walker agreed. Mr. ~inter suggested stating 5~ of the replacement or re- construction value. Mr. Lambert stated he was opposed to it being based on the assessed value and explained further. Mr. Howell explained that they use an updated valuation set by the Souihern Standard Building Code. They discussed further how this would apply. The various methods to deter- mine the replacement cost was discussed at length. Mr. Lambert read Section 11.5.2 and referred to the outside display of products. This was discussed and Mr. Howell ex- plained that this pertained to a man using only half a build- ing and he could use the rest, but could not extend it. Mr. Lambert explained how there would possibly be outside display of material and Chairman Kelly replied that they were not talking about outside display. Mr. Lambert stated he thought this was a poor way to word it. Mr. Ryder pointed out that this was spelled out in Section 11.5.1 and Mr. Lambert agreed it was plainly specified here regarding the extension of a building and questioned why it was stated again in 5.2? He thinks they maan something else. Mr. Howell read both sec- tions asd agreed there were possibly two different meanings. Chairman Kelly suggested adding to occupy additional build- ing area. Mr. Lambert referred to having an outside display of merchandise or products and this means they could not occupy outside land. Mr. Rossi clarified that it meant if it did not exist before, they cannot expand outside. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SEVEN FEBRUARY 24, 1 976 Mr. Lambert read Section 11.5.4 and stated he disagrees with the time element of six months. Mr. Howell agreed they must have the attorney's advice. Mr. Lambert read Section 11.6.1 and requested that this be defined. Mr. Howell explained that it meant that if you have a non-conforming building, you can maintain it, but you cannot make a structural alteration. Mr. Lambert re- plied that he agreed with this, but disagreed with this in regards to use and explained. ~r. Ryder clarified that this meant there could be a non-conforming building and in the instance there is no change in the use, repairs could be made. Mr. Howell added that it could be maintained, but any structural part of the building could hot be altered. Mr. Howell further explained how this would apply with using the example of a motor repair shop wanting to put in a lift and changing the roof~ etc. and this would not be allowed. Chair- man Kelly stated he thought this was clear. Mr. Howell clar- ified that if it was a non-conforming building with a non- conforming use, no structural alterations could be made. He agreed this was not real clear. Mr. Lambert stated they must have the attorney check this. Mr. Lambert read Paragraph 11.6.2 and stated he thought this should be changed with reference to dates. Also, he does not agree again with references to the current assessed value. Mr. Walker informed him that Mr. Smoot was a member of the County Planning & Zoning Board and probably that is why he used this guideline. Mr. Lambert said he believed this was also in the old code and he discussed it with ~. Barrett. He further explained how ~. Barrett had also agreed it was a thorn in his side. He thinks it should be percentage, but doesn't know what i~ should be based on. ~. Howell agreed. Mr. Walker agreed there should be some changes and he thinks they should have some legal advice. Mr. Winter suggested finding out how to insert Southern Standard Building Code in reference to percentage values. Mr. Rossi stated he was not familiar with this method and Mr. Howell explained how it was calculated by square footage. Mr. Winter agreed this would be a good basis to use. Mr. Howell explained further how the value was determined on a damaged building. The advantages of using the Southern Standard Building Code were discussed further. ~4r. Lambert asked where this document would proceed now and Mr. Ryder replied to the City Council. M~. Lambert replied that he thought i~ahould be reviewed by the City Attorney first. Mr. Howell suggested advising the City Council what this Board wants to do and possibly taking it to the lawyer first. In the meantime, applications are just going to have ~o go before the Board of Adjustment. ~4r. Lambert questioned MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE EIGHT FEBRUARY 24, 1976 what they could do tonight to get this going and referred to the importance of it and the necessity to expedite it and meet with the City Attorney and City Council. Mr. Howell suggested submitting it to the City Council subject to the amended changes. Mr. Lambert agreed the City Council should be aware of this and Mr. Ryder also agreed, but added that they need legal help. Mr. Ryder suggested submitting it to the City Council subject to legal interpretation. Mr. Winter suggested retyping it w~th the notations made tonight. Chair- man Kelly suggested sending it to the City Attorney and after changes are made, then refer it to the City Council. Mr. Winter stated he thought it sh.ould be retyped first and Eiven to Mr. Reed for presentation to the City Council. Mr. Lam- bert disagreed and suggested submitting this document to- gether with the minutes from this meeting to the City Attor- ney and have him review both and come back with it. Mr. Ryder suggested bringing attention to the City Council through a lettertbo Mr. Kohl. Mr. Lambert made a motion to submit this document, Section 11 pertaining to non-conforming uses, lots, buildings, and struc- tures, and also the minutes of the February 24 meeting to the City Manager for his immediate forwarding to the City Attorney for prompt review and report, as this matter constitutes one of the highest priorities before the Planning & Zoning Board. ~. Ryder seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0. ME. Howell explained how there was notlimit set on accessory buildings in the current ordinance. He then stated~he would like to see a 10 x 10 ft. limit on metal utility buildings~and explained. Chairman Kelly then announced the next meeting would be on March 9. Adjournment Mr. Walker moved to adjourn, seconded by Mw. Winter. Motion carried 6-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at 10~15 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Suzanno Kruse Recording Secretary (Two Tapes)