Loading...
Minutes 11-12-75MINUTES OF THE REGULAR ~.ETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1975 AT 7:30 P.M. PRESENT Joseph T.. Kelly, Chairman Walter M. Trauger, Vice Ch~an. Mrs. Vicki Castello Enrico Rossi Simon Ryder ABSENT Mrs. Marilyn Huckle (Excused) Oris Walker (Excused) Warren Bushnell, Deputy Bldg. Official James Smoot, Planning Consultant Chairman Kelly welcomed the ladies and gentlemen present to the first regular meeting in November of the Planning & Zoning Board of the City of Boynton Beach and called the meeting to order at 7:30 P. M. He then introduced the members of the Board; Mr. Smoot, Professional Planner engaged to assist the Board; and Mr. Bushnell, Deputy Building Official, who has sat with the Board at all the meetings so far. He then announced they had a six item agenda. MINUTES Minutes of October .28, 1~75 Chairman Kelly referred to Page 8 where Mr. Rossi mentioned the moratorium being extended, etc. and advised that this has been corrected as he obtained a copy of Resolution~74-L the next day. ~M. Rossi agreed. Col. Trauger pointed out that the minutes were substantially correct at that time and Chairman Kelly agreed, but just wanted to co~ent. Col. Trau~er made a motion that the minutes of the meeting of October 25, 1975, be accepted as presented. Mr. Ryder seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-0, with Mrs. Castello abstaining because of absence. Minutes of November 8,. ! 975 .~. Rossi made a motion to accept the minutes of November 8, 1975, as presented. Mr. Ryder seconded the motion. Motion car- ried 4-0, with Col. Trauger abstaining by vir2ue of not being present. ,AR~NO~q~ CE MENTS Mr. Smoot referred to their previous discussion regarding annex- ation and the record indicating there was no opportunity at all for a person to annex. First,of all, he would ~.e to make the MINUTES P~..NNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE ~0 NOVEMBER 12, 1 975 correction that Mro Federspiel is a law partner of Mr. Simon and that is all. Mr. Federspiel and Mr. Simon informed him in reference to annexation, that this Board is charged to review all applications for annexation. The co~ents regarding the validity in reference to the State Statute will be reserved for the next meeting of the City Council. In reference to the cur- rent application for annexation on the agenda this evening, there is only one way that can be annexed and that is if the property has the same zoning in the County. If it is zoned agriculture and they want to go to commercial, they must first achieve zoning from the County before it can be zoned into the City. This is the status of the situation in regards to annexa- tion as far as this City is concerned. Chairman Kelly advised that he had a discussion with Mr. Simon yesterday, which may clear the air. He then read the attached memo dated November 6 to ~. Simon from Mr. Kohl and also M~. Simon's reply dated November 11. Mr. Smoot clarified that he was simply requesting information regarding a possibl~ differ- ential between the County and City zoning. Chairman Kelly agreed and added that he even suggested that they have a copy of the County Land Use Plan. Mr. Smoot agreed that the map would be helpful for reference and advised that he would supply the Board with a copy. C OM~UNICAT IONS Personal discussion from Mr. Jame_s .?~rth~~din~g wi_nd generator Mr. James Wurth appeared before the Board and stated his name and his address as 640 Castilla Lane. He stated that it has been awhile since he appeared before the Board and he thought he would let them know what has been taking place up to now. From what he understands, the City is trying to get their ordinances re-written. Maybe it would be a mistake to try to push something through and maybe he should coo~ it for awhile. The last time he was in, he was advised to have his plans approved by a licensed engineer and re-submit them to the Board. Since then, he has been in contact with a rating engineer, who made some recommendations. He has changed the pole to steel, as a wood pole may shatter if hit by lightning. He has built a steel tower with a different guy struc- ture. He has re-designed his ideas in view of safety. He is still plugging along and working on it. He has the generator in his garage now. He then referred to an article in "Popular Science~ and told about an installation in ~isconsin. He explained how it could be hooked into the Florida Power & Light box and how if the windiis blowing hard, power can be credited. He added that there are about 20 of these in nine different states. He has discussed this with Florida Power & Light and they are in favor of this. A Congressman in Wisconsin has one and has had no problems. He has done quite a bit since he talked~ to the Board the last time. At this time, he doesn't think he should put any pressure on the Board to make a decision until they have things straightened out. MINUTES PLA~ING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THREE NOVE~ER 12, 1975 Chairman Kelly asked if he desired to have this removed from the agenda And he could come back when he was read~? ~. W~rth agreed. He added if they pushed this thing through now, it may set a pre- cedent in the wrong direction. Mr. Bushnell informed them that this particular item was not an agenda item. It was removed from the agenda some time ago and Mr. Wurth is here for discussion. Mr. Rossi referred to previous discussions regarding the genera- tor, whether it was permitted, etc. He referred to Mr. Wurth building a tower and he must have some idea where he can put it. Mr. Ryder and Mrs. Castello agreed that they should defer this matter. Mr. Wurth stated that he just felt at this time since they are going through this change, possibly he may not even have to come before this Board and may not require a variance. Also, they didn't have much to go on with the way the laws are w~tten. tt would cost him $200 for the engineer's seal to get these plans approved. He feels rather than spending the money, he will wait and may not need to do it. He is willing to doli£, if he could get a commitment. Mr. Smoot stated that in his estimation, the difficulty of this wind generator is not the fact what it is, but that the height limit exceeds the ordinance. This is a matter for the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment has classically been ~ated the authority to regulate certain things such as height, etc. Col. Trauger questioned why they have discussed church steeples and other things which have exceeded the height limita- tion and Mr. Bushnell informed them that the Planning & Zoning Regulations demand it. OLD BUS I~SS 1. Paul Wessen- 391 Miner Road __ (~.~Private School) Mr. Bushnell informed the Board that the last time Mr. Wesson appeared before the Board, there was a question whether his li- cense was an allowable use and at that time, it was ruled it was not. Mr. Wessen has applied now for a license for a pre-school, which is an allowable use. Mr. Smoot stated he thought the argu~ut was whether it was a permitted use in this zone. He understood that other schools were permitted in this zone, but private schools were not per- mitted. If you allow public schools, you must allow private schools. The question of jurisdiction of public or private is really a moot point. If they are going to permit a public faci- lity in a given zone, they must also permit the private sector to engage in the same activity. The permitted use should state schools. If they wish to designate, such as college, elementary, etc.~ they must include private as well. MINUTES PLAh~ING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR NOVEmbER 12, 1975 Col. Trauger referred to the original presentation of' the appli- cation being above the level of nursery or pre-school. Mr. Bushnell agreed, but advised it was no longer true as ~. Wessen has applied for a license for a pre-school facility. Mr. Bushnell then showed the plans. Mr. Paul ~essen appeared before the Board. Col. Trauger asked if this would encompass the same grades as the adjacent school and ~. ~essen replied that it would be for children of pre-school age. The members then studied the plans and discussed the loca- tion. Mr. Smoot referred to the area of 22nd Avenue being in- volved in dedication for a road to collect traffic from !-95 to Route 1. Mr. Wessen informed him if ~iner Road had a number, it would be 29th. The members checked the location on the map and F~. Smoot noted his reference would not be an issue. Mr. Smoot referred to the parking and Mr. Wessen explained that it was incorrect on the landscape plan, but was noted correctly on the regular plan per requests from the T.R.B. Mr. Smoot ques- tioned the employee p~rking and pick-up area for children° He went on to explain about problems they had encountered at schools in Delray Beach when parents came to pick up their children. Mr. Wessen informed him that this would be staggered in his school with delivery of children being between 7~00 and 9:00 A. M. and pickup between 12:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon. Mr. Smoot recom- mended something for employee parking instead of in the loop where children ~re picked up. Col. Trauger suggested putting two p~rking spaces in the 30 ft. area and Mr. Smoot agreed. ~. Rossi questioned the rear setback and ~. Wessen informed him it was 25 ft. or more; it is exactly the same as the other build- ings~ Mr. Rossi informed him that it should be noted on the plan. ~. Smoot pointed out there would only be a nominal loop facility. Mr. ~essen indicated where he had addition room and Mr. Smoot in- formed him this was on the public right-of-way and he must supply it on hislland. ~. Wessen replied that he did not want to cut down on the grass area. Mr. Smoot pencilled some suggestions for the parking changes on the?plan. M~. Wessen pointed out that it would take away from the recreational area for the children, but if it could not be solved any other way, he will agree. P~. Smoot informed him that the Board of Health has regulations for amount of spaces provided exteriorly for children. He suggests the parking spaces be installed as recommended instead of having people drop off children on the right-of-way. Mr. Wessen asked if he could supply parking on leased adjacent property and ~. Smoot informed him that it must be on his site. Col. Trauger made a motion to recommend to the City Council the site plan as presented by Paul Wessen for a Child Care Center, 391 Miner Road, with the stipulation that he add two parking spaces on the site for employee parking, i~. Ryder seconded the motien. Motion carried 5-0. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARJ) PAGE FIVE NOVEMBER 12, 1975 Col. Trauger asked what would happen if this school was used for five to eight year olds? Mr. Smoot replied that this could very easily happen. The City would never ~mow, as he must apply to the State. Joseph Cogen - Annexation -23r_ d~.AF~e_~_ue and Cong~ss:._AvenBe ~. Charles Fronrath stated his name and his address as 226 S. E. 1st Avenue. He stated that he was at the last meeting and as the Board is aware, ~vh~. Cogen is interested in putting single family residences on this land. He is interested in building homes in the area of $35,~00 to $45,000. He is willing to donate property to the City for a water tower. Ne is donating right-of-way for 15th Avenue. He would l~e to withhold the northwest corner, approximately 300 by 300 feet. It is approximately 200 acres of land. This is something Boynton Beach needs to get families with children and not more condominiums for adults. Chairman Kelly asked how it was zoned presently by the County and M~. Fronrath replied that it was agriculture, i'~r. Smoot stated he didn't like to cast aspersions on the property, because he is not. He referred to the City Attorney's memo referring to the Florida Statutes. This particular section states if the zoning in the County does not agree with the City, you must first seek appro- val from the Coonty before annexing into the City. it seems silly, because if you get what you want from the County, why come into the City? Mr. Fronrath asked if he was stating they should go to the County and then come to the City? Mr~ Smoot replied: yes, but he didn't agree as this is relegating their authority to the County. ~. Fronrath replied that they could get higher density from the County, so why should they then come to the City? Mr. Fronrath pointed out that ~. Cogen was planning for two 25 acre lakes and it will be a water oriented community, which he thinks Boynton Beach needs. Mr. Smoot replied that he had no argument, but was just relating the City Attorney's information. They have been told to review it on the existing resolution. When it gets to the City Council, the City Attorney will refer to this statute. Mr. Smoot read Section 171.062 Florida. Stat~es. Mr. Smoot pointed out that he was going from agriculture to single family and com- mercial. He explained how this would increase and decrease the density. He is not arguing, but just explaining the State Statute. Mr. Fronrath asked if this was something new and ~. Smoot informed him that it was passed in 1973. Mr. Fronrath asked if the Board's recommendation was that they couldn't come into the City unless they get permission from the County? ~.ir. Smoot replied: no, they are to consider the application according to Resolution 74-L. He was just trying to point out what problems he would encounter when appearing before the City Council. ~. Fronrath requested a copy of ~the statute and Chairman ~elly gave him one. Col. Trauger pointed out if they took this from the resolution and passed by the resolution, they would be violating State law. ~. Smoot:lin- formed him that they should review the plans and make reports to the City Council. They cannot hold it up here if they consider the request to be proper. MINUTES ~NNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SiX NOVEMBER 12, 1975 M~. Fronrath then explained the plans. Mr. Ryder asked if the land to the north was in the City limits and ~. Fronrath replied that the City limits were on the north and east. ~. Ryder noted that commercial property was shown along Congress Avenue to the north, but not to the south of 23r~. Mr. Smoot suggested instead of a strip to make a corner of commercial on the corner to better serve the people to the west. M~. Fronrath pointed out that Lindsley Lumber and the fire station were across the street from the commercial strip and he didn't think people would want to live across the street from these. He added that Mr. Smoot's sugges- tion would make a square shopping center and he think~ they have a sufficient number of shopping centers. They discussed the ad- vantages of strip zoning and a corner shopping center. Also dis- cussed Was the heavy traffic along the entire length of Congress Avenue and how commercial properties were primarily located along it instead of residen~iaI homes. Mr. Fro~rath also pointed out there were shopping complexes across the street and to the north, ~ut he kept the south portion residential being across from nice homes and apartments. Col. Trauger questioned the impact of this development on the schools and Mr. Fromrath asked if they wanted another retire- ment village? Chairman Kelly pointed out that a new middle school was being built to the north. Mr. Smoot explained how this would create a school problem of about 50-50. Col. Trauger continued that there was no elementary school that he knew of within this whole area or even one contemplated by the school board. Mr. Smoot remarked that the school board has a m~er plan, which he wished was available to the cities. ~. Smoot then asked how the open spaces and lakes would be main- tained? Will there be a homeowner's association or what? Mr. Fronrath replied that they would not have a recreation lease. Mr. Smoot continued that the Lake Worth Drainage District would not touch the lakes. Col. Trauger added that with annexing, it would become the City's responsibility. ~. Fronrath replied that he was sure whatever had to be done would be taken care of. Mr. Smoot suggested that it be in the annexation agreement that the maintenance of lakes and any other facilities not on public roads shall be taken care of by the homeowner's association. Fronrath questioned what problems there would be and P~. Smoot referred to mosquitoes, ducks, weeds, etc. ~. Fronrath replied he was sure this could be taken care of. Mr. Rossi referred to the County and how they required provision for maintenance of any water shown on plats. M~. Smoot stated again that prior to annex- ation, it should be stated how maintenance ms to be taken care of. He doesn't think they can arrive at an answer now, but the City Council should address itself to this question. ~. Fronrath re- plied that they could work it out. Mr. Smoot referred to the road on the south side and questioned if it was the only point of ingress~and egress to the ~outh property and if it aligned to the road across Congress? MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE SEVEN NOVEMBER 12, 1 975 Mr. Fronrath replied that heddidn't know if the road was aligned to the other road or not. ~. Smoot stated that it should be. He continued that he would prefer to have access off of 23rd rather than Congress, which he thinks would be better for sales. M~. Fronrath agreed. Mrs. Castello questioned if this wasn't superfluous and Mr. Smoot replied that in annexation, the City may apply any conditions. They may apply conditions as it ap- plies to ingress, egress, water facilities, etc. They have dis- cussed only the points where the property dumps into a public road. Col. Trauger made a motion to recommend to the City Council the annexation of the plat of survey as described by the survey pre- pared by Schwebke-Skiskin & Associates, Inc. of Miami,Florida, drawing order Nos. 125119 and 125120 dated September 26, 1975, for J. Cogen, 23rd and Congress Avenues, as proposed by the development plan with the stipulation that the lake shown on the north portion be excepted from the City for. maintenance of that lake and for that portion south of 23~d, no ~ngress or egress shall be made from Congress Aven~e, but ~ngress and egress shall be confined to S. W. 23rd Avenue. This annexation does not in- clude approximately 300 x 300 feet on the northwest corner of 23rd and Congress, which shall be held in abeyance in the present zoning of agriculture as approved by the County. The zoning shall be accepted as proposed by the developer for R-1 and the strip shown on the proposed development plan as C-3, with exception pre- viously mentioned, be C-3. Also, a portion of this motion is that the metes and bounds of the total property be included. Also, egress and in~ress of this annexation shall be pursuant to County Ordinance ?3.2 · Sect~on~-~GO~20(d), regarding access control to County rightm-of-way. Further stipulated that all required County rights-of-way, Woolbright Road, Congress Avenue and S. W. 23rd Avenue, shall be dedicated to the ultimate right-of-way as required. Chairman Kelly laid aside the gavel and seconded the motion. ~ Under discussion, Mr. Smoot stated that egress and ingress should be shown as applicable on the survey and not on the accompanying site plan. It is an appropriate consideration in the matter of annexations to discuss the workings of the property. M~. Bushnell pointed out that the subdivision l~yout Only showed what he planned to do. ~. Smoot asked if they could consider this as a master site plan and Mr. Bushnell replied it would be rather improper since a subdivision is different and under a different ordinance than annexation. The members discussed the difference between the two documents presented. ~. Smoot then asked if the City would receive a~ranty deed to the water tower site and ~. Fronrath replied: yes. The members then discussed the regulations and egress from County roads, also the required distance from an intersection from which they must be located. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE EIGHT NOVEMBER 12, 1 975 Mr. Ryder stated that he thinks they can expect in the future to get more annexation requests along Congress Avenue. They have setbacks and buffers along Congress. South of 23rd Avenue now there are homes shown along Congress and he doesn't believe this im right. There is a lot of virgin area to be considered. He doesn't think houses should be right on Congress. ~. Smoot pointed out that they must look at each given si~e and analym~ what is best for that particular site and how it functions in the City. They should not consider the strip zoning on the other side. Mr. Ryder referred to the people in Leisureville wanting to sell their homes along Congress because of the noise and fumes. Mr. Smoot then outlined the problems of strip zoning. One, it isn't sunk in deep enough to get the traffic off the road. Second, it is bad if it permits re,ail uses causing comparative shopping and he explained. He pointed out that C-3 allows a whole flock o~ uses. ~. Ryder referred to Milno~ creating a buffer. Col. Trauger remarked that he was in favor of the R-1 and he thought it was great that the commercial strip was not continued below 23rd. Mr. Smoot pointed out that the strip of C-3 proposed was north of Woolbright Road and is 174 feet deep. It will be a problem to the City what type of use should go in there. Perhaps a multi-family or C-$ consideration should be given. If you get a string of shotgun uses, you might run into a problem. Across the canal is also commercial. He recommends that they get away from C-3 zoning and get into more restrictive. Col. Trauger stated he thought they should accept this annexation and discuss theazoning under the site plan review. M~. Ryder re- ferred to Route 1 being residential first, but now being all com- mercial. The members then discussed a service road. ~. Smoot explained how the County was considering ways to separate local traffic from thru traffic. Chairman Kelly finally called for a vote on the motion. Motion carried 3-2, with Mr. Ryder and Mrs. Castello voting against. Mrs. Castello stated she voted against specifically because the area is presently zoned under the County Land Use Plan. The zoning was proposed in this request for annexation and it is in conflict with the County Land Use Plan aud in conflict with Florida Statute 171.062. Chairman Kelly replied that they have nothing else to work with. This is presumably being passed onto the City Council for their consideration. As of tonight, they have nothing else but Resolution 74-L. Mrs. Castello stated she understands Resolution 74-L refers to annexation and they are actually re-zoning as well as annexing. Col. Trauger stated he passed the motion under the resolution and guided by the memo. Chairman Eelly stated they are recommending to City Council only. 3. Joseph Tufo - 715 N. W. 2nd Avenue (BuildinE Addition) ~. Bushnell advised that this was before the Board at the last meeting, but it was brought to his attention that the new park- ing plan had not been submitted to the C.A..B. It has now been submitted to the C.A.B. and approved by that Board. MIE-~TES PLAR-~il~G & ZONING BOARD PAGE NINE NOVE~]~ER 12, t 975 Mr. Richard Catdwell stated his name and his address as 1350 S. W. 27tho Chairman Kelly referred totthe address listed on the agenda and Mr. Caldwell informed him that it should be 814-818 North Federal Highway. Mr. Rossi noted that 30 parking spaces were shown and it was the same plan which the Board re- ferred to the C.A.B. Mr. Caldwell agreed, but advised that they re-did it showing the Board's recommendations. He continued that the only other question previously was whether the C.a.B. would approve the site plan with the changes made with the additional parking. Mr. Rossi made a motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the revised site plan as approved by the C.A.B. for the proposed buildi~ addition located 814-818 North Federal Highway. M~s. Castello seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. ~W BUS II~ESS Request for Preliminary Discussion - Representative: M~. Conte Lake Worth Mariner Village Site Plans __Wilm ~a~._. (Willard Road) Mr. Bushnell informed the Board that }~. Conte proposes a develop- ment on Wilm Way out to the intracoasta! with single family dwell- ings with a private road on the front and private canals. The members discussed the location. PP. Bushnell then continued that Mm'.Conte wanted the Board's reaction to his plan. Since the roads and canals are private, the boundaries of the lots will extend from the roads to the canals and he would like to know what setback would be required. Mr. Bushnell then showed the plans and the members studied them. Mr. Smoot asked what the net area of the lots was without the water or road and Mr. Conte replied that he didn't know. He has measured including the roads and water and it is over 6,000 sq. feet. ~. Smoot stated he didn't see how he could include the road with the area of the lot. This was discussed by the two men. Col. Trauger then referred to whether they could fill in the canals. ~. Smoot pointed out in the plat previously processed, the land area contained in the lot, excluding the canal, met requirements. However, in this the ownership goes to the centerline of the water and the lsmd s~ea contained is considerably less than that required. Mr. Rossi referred to the private road and asked if there was a survey, h~. Bushnell informed him this was just a prelimins~y discussion. Mr. Conte presented an old survey showing the pri- vate road as 14 to 15 feet wide. M~. Ryder remarked that this was too narrow. Col. Trauger questioned the minimum width re- quired and Mr. Smoot'informed him it was 22 ft. MINUTES PLANING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TEN NOVE~ER 12, 1975 ~. Rossi asked who had jurisdiction over the canal and Mr. Conte replied that the Army Corps. of Engineers did. M~. Smoot stated that he could not have purchased property then and ~. Conte informed him that he has been to the State also. He added that 99 townhouses were originally proposed, but now they plan to build 42 homes. Mr. Ryder noted that 50 ft. lots were shown and 60 ft. lots are required in R-1 zoning. Mr. Smoot agreed that the lots did not meet R-1 requirements. He added that they ~st also consider utility rights-of-way. Mr. Conte informed him that all the uti- lities are in and he showed this on the old survey. Mr. Rossi ascertained it was a City maintained sewer, but pointed out that the survey did not show the easement for it. M~. Ryder then referred to a good deal of fill being required and ~. Conte agreed and explained. Mr. Bushnell added that he had the approval from the Corps. of Engineers for the seawall. Conte showed his permit from the Army Engineers. He also showed them a permit from the State of Florida. ~. Rossi stated he thought the applicant was asking for something not intthe ordinances. Mr. Conte indicated he would layout the lots to meet the 60 ft. frontage requirement. Mr. Rossi noted that the lot depth was not shown. Mr. Conte informed him that they own to the bottom of the canal and took the depth to there. He showed the plans for the homes. Col. Trauger asked how many sqaure feet would be in a house and ~. Conte informed him there would be 1400 to 1500 sq. feet in the two bedroom house and 1600 sq. feet in the three bedroom house. There will be 25 fe~t be- tween houses. Each one will have a different front. M~. ~yder asked why it was a private road and ~. Conte replied that it was never dedicated. Chairman Melly questioned if it has been in existence and Mr. Conte replied: yes, the road is there right now and he pointed it out on the map. Mr. Rossi asked if they had any input from the City Engineer and M~. Bushnell replied: no, ~. Conte wanted to know the Board's reaction of lots with private roads and canal. ~. Rossi remarked if the City has been maintaining these sewers, they should get a right-of-way, as it is not right to maintain them on private property. The engineer- ing aspects will be treated when the drawings are submitted and must meet all requirements. The roadway must be maintained. M~. Conte replied that he would do this. Mr. Rossi asked what was the setback from the road and Mr. Conte informed him it was 25 feet from the edge of the road. ~. Rossi pointed out that 17 feet was not sufficient for a two-way road. He added that the lots must have a minimum frontage of 60 feet and M~. Conte replied that he would change the plan and he has allowed 25 ft. in the front and back. Mr. Rossi pointed out that there would only be 19 feet left for the house. MI~'TES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE ELEVEN NOVEi~BER t 2, 1975 ~. Smoot stated he thought it should be reviewed more carefully. He then asked, about drainage swales and ~. Conte replied that he would check the engineering requirements. He is sure it can be worked out. Mr. Rossi remarked that this was a tight situation. They then discussed the elevation and fill required. Mr. Ryder added that possibly Tom Clark may have some information on this and Mr. Bushnell agreed. ~. Conte informed them that this was submitted just for a preliminary review. ~@. Smoot then referred to the frontage on the cul-de-sac lots and pointed out that they did not meet the requirements. Mr. Conte replied that usually on cul-de-sacs, the setback lines are considered. Col. Trauger questioned the size of the cul-de-sac and M~. Conte informed him it was 80 feet. Mr. Rossi informed him that it was usually 100 feet. Mr. Conte remarked that it was a private road. Mr. Smoot referred to a lot shown with Just a pool and explained that this was not allowed and a primary use must be part of it. He stated again that he did not thin~ the center line of any street should be included in the lot area. They also must designate in the ordinance how much land can be in the water. He asked if the canal was dedicated and checked the plan and note~ it was marked canal right-of-way and stated they could not own this. They would have toccheck the records ~o see whether it was released by the trustees. He explained the procedure for getting a canal. He added that he would check this with Mr. O'Brien tomorrow. ~. Conte informed him that it was privately owned. He continued with explaining his plans ~or homes in the $55,000 range with financing for 30 years. They plan to have a $25 monthly mainte- nance charge, like condo homes. ~. Smoot asked if there would be any legal documents the City could review regarding the main- tenance, etc. and Mr. Conte replied: yes, but the association has to ~be formed. ~r. Smoot stated that prio~ to final acceptance, he would like the developer to provide a homeowners' agreement regarding maintenance of re, ads, utilities, sewers and bulkhead, so the developer can assure the City that people won't come back to the City. Mr. Rossi pointed out there were a lot of engineering questions to be considered here. Mr. Smoot continued that they must have a public utility easement for all utilities and also a drainage easement on either side of the road dedicated to the City. Mr. Rossi ex- plained how Leisurevi!le made provisions with special exceptions. He is sure all these requiraments can be met. He questions though how they make these requirements. The members discussed how this could be done. M~. Smoot suggested that they could require him to meet the R-1 requirements. They must consider just how much of these lots is lot area. If they decide to give variances on the setbacks, he suggests giving it in the rear and he explained the problems they would have in reducing the front. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE ~ELVE NOVEiv~ER 12, 1 975 Mr. Rossi asked what the result would be with a 20 ft. road on a 30 ft. utility easement. Mr. Bushnell replied that it would take I5 ft. off the front. Mr. Conte stated they would have 96 ft. with the wet area. Mr. Bushnell added that they would still have a 20 ft. dry yard in the back. ~. Rossi clarified that with a 30 ft. wide utility easement, it would provide for the road, utility easements and swales. ~ir. Smoot questioned if the setback line would be from the swale line or the edge of the pavement? ~. Rossi added it would be good to have a swale and Mr. Smoot agreed and referred again to the width of the road and the importance of having it wide enough for emergency vehicles. He also explained how it was imperative to have a maximum setback from the pavement. He added that he is primarily concerned with the travelling public and the people residing there. ~. Conte informed them that the house would fit and would have a 20 ft. dry yard left in the back. Mr. Rossi stated since it would work, how did they make it apply, with a special exception? Mr. Smoot replied that it would fit in the R-1 zoning and advised M~. Conte of the requirements for the R-l zone. He added that the drawing should show 20 ft. for the private road and the engineer should indicate public utility access, so the City can maintain it. Also, 5 ft. should be shown on each side for a drainage swale and utility easement. M~. Conte pointed out three lots which could not meet these re- quirements. He indicated that these three lots were on an 18 ft. street and if he changed it to 20 ft., the lots would be too small. M~. Rossi suggested that he submit revised plans with the recom- mendations the Board has made. Also, he should find out about the engineering facts. Mr. Conte replied that this would be no problem. Mr. Rossi suggested following through with the City Engineer to check on the maintenance of the sewers and water. He would also like to know how this relates to the property to the south. ~%~. Conte informed him that this was all vacant property. ~. Smoot referred to the 18 ft. private road and questioned if there was a reciprocal easement to the properties to the south and M~. Conte replied that they did not need it, as there is only one lot and the lots are turned the other way. Mr. Rossi referred to a platted road shown to the rear of the lots on the City map and asked if these lots were platted? Mr. Bushnell stated that they may be platted in one form or another, but he is not sure. Chairman Kelly stated he thought it would be helpful to have the aerial photo and Mr. Rossi agreed and added that he thought they should be brought all the time. M~. Bushnell stated he would have it available. Mr. Conte informed the Board that he would meet all the require- ments and re-submit at the next meeting. Chairman Kelly an- nounced that the consensus is that it would be nice for the City and if the proper answers are given to the questions asked to- ~ight, it will be given favorable consideration. MINUTES P~,~'N.iNG & ZONING BOARD PAGE THIRT~N NOVEM2~ER 12, 1975 a Discussion and Ruling on "Nam Operator Antennae" (Excess of 25 ft. in height): (a) Carl R. Smoot - 2151N. E. First Lane (B) Fernan Pelaez - !791N. E. 2nd Court (c) James L. Jones - 2350 N. W. First Street Mr. Bushnell informed the Board that in each ir~tance, the man's antenna was more than45 ft. in height. Col. Trauger questioned how much higher and ~[r. Bushnell replied that Mr. Jones was 50 ft. high and then he noted that Mr. Smoot's and Mr. Pelaez's antennaes were only 35 ft. high. Mr. Smoot stated that he thought the limit was 25 ft. ~M. Bushnell referred to mentioning height of antennaes per an ordinance in the zoning regulations, but the ordinance is not in the book and they must find out if it is valid. This same thing applies to the gasoline stations, because they were not mentioned. Mr. J. Smoot explained Section 18 of the zoning code providing for repealing. Mr. Bushnell clarified that if it was under 45 ft., he could issue a permit and Chairman Kelly agreed. Col. Trauger pointed out that they didn't have anything covering how far above the roof it could go. M~. J. Smoot advised him if they got into the height above the roof, they must consider the different types of roofs. He thinks it should be considered from the finished grade. Chairman Kelly and Co!. Trauger agreed. ~. J. Smoot questioned the purpose of these antennaes and if all the CB's had antennaes of this type and the men replied: yes. Mr. Ryder asked what regulations the Building Department had re- gs~ding the constructional phase of these antennaes and M~. Bushnell replied that they were just concerned with the height, anything below 45 ft. is allowed. Mr. Ryder stated he was re- ferring to the design and ~. Bushnell replied that not having had one before, he didn't know. ~. C. Smoot asked if this ap- plied to all the television antennaes and Mr. Ryder stated that they didn't go up that high. ~. C. Smoot referred to Village Royale having two-story buildings with antennaes on the roofs. Chairman Kelly asked why these men were here and Mr. Bushnell informed, him that letters were sent to them because they were in violation, i~. J. Smoot asked if they would be used for any type of commercial purposes and all the men replied: no. Mr. Jones explained that he had his antenna at the legal height, but when Village Royale was built, he got a letter from the FCC stat- ing he was interfering with their televisions. He was told he was violating the code. It was suggested by the FCC to raise his antenna and since then, he has had no problems, it cost him $400 to move his antenna higher. He added that he could cut 5 ft. off, but Village Royale would complain. According to FCC, you are allowed 60 ft. Another man informed the Board that his original antenna was 64 ft. and he just spent $300 to b~ing it down ~to 40 ft. When he was at 64 ft., he did not bother Village MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOURTEEN NOVE~ER 12, 1975 Royale. ~. Ryder asked why he lowered it and the man replied that he received a registered letter stating he must take it down. Mr. Bushnell clarified that the letter came from the Building Department in reply to complaints. Col. Trauger read the section of the code setting the 45 ft. limit. He pointed out that they actually have a radio tower and if they are over 45 ft., they can recommend to the City Council that a special exception be granted. M~. Jones stated that he was just asking for 5 ft. to stop interfering with peoples' televisions. Mr. C. Smoot added that he has a filter on his, but people from Village Royale came around knocking on their doors. Mr. Jones then explained the requirements for obtaining a license from the FCC. ~s. Castello clarified that they only had to consider ~. Jones' antenna, as it was the only one higher than 45 ft. Col. Trauger asked how many people in Boynton Beach held CB licenses? Mr. Jones informed him there were approximately 700 people in the County. He stated he could show him at least 200 antennaes in Boynton Beach. Mrs. Castello asked if these were over 45 ft. and Mr. Jones replied that most were 50 ft. He has spent $700 in his tower and $400 to raise it. Mr. Rossi clarified that the code allowed up to 45 ft. and only Mr. Jones was involved. Mr. Jones agreed and pointed out it was only 5 ft. He added that he will cut off the 5 ft., but Village Royale will complain. It wasbbecause of Village Royale that he had to raise it. Mr. Rossi asked why the other gentle- men were here and ~. C. Smoot and ~. Pelaez replied that they were summoned. ~. Bushnell advising that he went according to the ordinance and all were sent a registered letter. Chairman Kelly questioned where these instructions came from and Mr. Bushnell informed him that they had received complaints and they must answer these complaints. ~. Rossi pointed out that they agreed the ordinance was not correct. F~. J. Smoot stated that only the height was in conflict. Mr. Rossi remarked that possi- bly 45 ft. was too much and he questions whether 45 ft. is a good maximum limit for a structure, is 70 to 80 ft. too much? Mr. Jones replied that 70 to 80 ft. was illegal and they could not go above 60 ft. Mr. Rossi replied that the regulations could be changed next week and he thinks 45 ft. was put in there for a particular reason. Mr. J. Smoot referred to the antennaes at Village Royale and questioned the difference between these men putting up a 50 ft. antenna and Village Royale putting a 20 ft. antenna on top of their building. Mr. Rossi replied that he didn't know what kind of antennaes they had on their buildings. ChairmanKelly asked if they did have antennaes on their roofs smd Mr. Jones informed him that each individual building had one antenna. He added by moving his up, it changed his 'whole wave length and he explained. MIB~UTES PLAh~ING & ZONING BOARD P~GE FIFTEEN NOVE~BER 12, 1975 Mr. Rossi asked if 50 ft. would give him what he needs and Mr. Jones replied: yes, he was more than satisfied. Also, with this extra 5 ft., he does not bother televisions of the residents in Village Royale. Mrs. Castello made a motion to allow Mr. James L. Jones, 2350 N. W. First Street, to have his antenna up to a height of 50 ft. M~. Ryder seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0. Mr. Rossi asked how they regulated construction of 50 ft. towers, so they wouldn't fall down. ~*~. Jones explained how they had commercial built towers. Mx. Ryder asked if the erection of a tower required certified people and Mr. Jones replied that he has been putting them up for 3½ years. The m~in thing is that it is a commercial tower and must be securely fastened. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Ryder moved to adjourn, seconded by Mrs. Castello. Motion carried 5-0 and the meeting was properly adjourned at tl :10 P. M. ~G~-NDA Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting Time: Date: Place: 7:30 P.M. November 12, 1975 Council Chambers - City Hall 1. Acknc~ledgement of members and visitors. 2. Reading and approving of minutes. 3. Announcements: 4. Conmunications: Personal discussion from Mr. James Wurth regs/di~g wind generator. 5. Old business: 1. Paul Wessen - 391 Miner Road (Private School) 2. Joseph Cogen- Annexation- 23rd Avenue an,d Congress Avenue 3. Joseph Tufo - ~7~-N~.~ (Building Additzon) New Business: 1. Request for Prelimenary discussion - Representative: lAKE WORTH MAJLINER VILLAGE Site Plans Wilm Way (Willard Road) 2. D~seussion and ruling on "Ham Operator Antennae" (excess of 25' in height) : (a) Carol~ R. Smoot- 2151 N. E. First Lane (b) Fernan Pelaez - 1791 N. E. 2nd Court (c) James L. Jones - 2350 N. W. First St~et Mr. Conte