Loading...
Minutes 04-26-75MtErLTTES OF 5RtE WORKSHOP MEETING OF THE PLA~ING & ZONING BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, SATURDAY, APRIL 26, 1975 AT 9:00 A. M. PRESENT Joseph T. Kelly, Chairman Mrs. Marilyn Huckle John I. Rogers Enrico Rossi Oris Walker (Arrived 1:37 P. M.) ABSENT Walter M. Trauger, Vice Chman. ~s. Vicki Castello (Excused) Jack Barrett, Bldg. Official Warren Bushnell, Deputy Bldg. Official Mrs. Suzanne Eruse, Recording Secretary (Excused) Chairman Kelly called the workshop meeting to order at 9:13 A.M. He took ~oll call and announced that N~s. Castello and Col. Trauger were unable to attend the meeting; Mrs. Castello is ill and Col. Trauger ha~? business at the college. He added that they expected the attendance of Mr. Walker, but as yet he had not arrived. He also noted that there was no public audience present. ChairmaaKelly referred to an informal discussion before the meeting when Mrs. Hackle brought to their attention a State Statute referring to Pag~ 1 of the regulations. He read the State Statute referring to review of the comprehensive plan at least once a year by the Planning & Zoning Board. After discussion, it was agreed to strike out three (3) and insert one (1) and add eno sentence: "As stipulated by Florida Statute 163". Before continuing where they had left off at the previous meeting, Mrs. Huckle had some questions in reference to the following pages: ~Page I 1 Mrs. Huckle referred to 4, Changes in District Boundaries, and questioned if The Official Zoning Regulations should be capitalized and the members agreed that it should be. Chairman Kelly questioned if the references~o Chapters 176 and 69-139 were correct? Mr. Barrett replied that he thought they were right, but he would check with the City Attorney as he was meeting with him on Tuesday morning. Mrs. Huc~le referred to the bottom and stated they did the reverse under 6 in reference to capitalization. This refer- ence is to zoning in any district and should not be capital- ized. The members agreed. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TWO APRIL 26, 1975 At this time, Chairman Kelly welcomed the attendance of Mr. Bill Elam. He added that Ns. Elam was chairman of the Hypoluxo Planning & Zoning Board and his intent was to He announced they would now continue with Page 31, where they had stopped at the previous meeting. Page 31 Mr. Barrett referred to E, Central Business District. He stated he didm't see anything wrong with the description of what they intend to accomplish. A C.B.D. could develop wherever population requires it. Rather than just let it go wild, the intent was to put it in as a planned development. Most towns have a central business district community and we want to see what is planned. He thinks it is described pretty well. Mr. Rossi stated he didn't see anything that limited the minimum size area for a C.B.D. Chairman Kelly read the paragraph stating a C.B.D. must be submitted as a planned development and he pointed out that this would limit it. Mr. Barrett read the first paragraph and stated he felt this stated the intent. ~r. Barrett gave an example of how the area around Boynton Road and Congress Avenue could be developed as a C.B.D. He did agree that sometime in the fut~e they should set up perimeters or other guidelines. However for now, they could wait and see which way it is going to develop. Mr. Rossi stated they should give more guidance to people reading this and clarify it for the man owning one piece of land zoned C-1 and should state a mini- mum size limit. The members discussed whether a size limita- tion was necessary at this time or whether it should be de- cided at a later date. They also discussed sizes according to city blocks and acres. They took into consideration present C.B.D.'s and the size of them. After discussion, it was agreed to add one sentence: "and shall cont~i~ ~o less than five acres". Mr. RoSers referred to the first section, and suggested delet- ing some items. He referred to Items E, G, and H, all referr- ing to marinas and yachtels. The reasons for listing these three items was discussed amd how it was intended to provide for a marina with a boatel and ~achtel and a separate facility for doing repairs. After discussion, it was agreed to eli- minate H. They also agreed to take marina out of E and just state boatels and yach~s including facilities for docking and fueling, Under G, it was agreed to state: marine service for fueling and docking only and strike out definitions. Mr. Rogers referred to art gallery and art studio and stated it seemed restrictive to only permit them in C.B.D. ¥~. Barrett agreed and stated they could start allowing them in C-3. After discussion, it was agreed to strike C and D. MI~UJTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE THREE APRIL 26, 1975 ~. Rossi qmesiioned whether it was the intent to allow everything ~uder C-4 in C.B.Do? Mr. Rogers suggested they could also eliminate building heigh~ and offstreet par~ng. After discussion, it was agreed to take out everything from 1 dewn~ to 3 and just include the philosophy and desig~atio~ of C.B.D. Page 3~ Mr. Rogers referred to A-l(c) and pointed out that it was already stated that City owned property could be anywhere and this could be eliminated. Mr. Barrett informed him that it was spelled out in each zoning starting with R-1AA. After discussion, it was agreed to leave it as stated. Mr. Bushnell pointed out that it should state: Uses Prohibited under 2. Mr. Rogers stated they should add and/or under E. Mr. Rogers referred to F and stated it should be accessory uses associated with the above uses. Mr. Rogers referred to C and questioned if they should add: adequately screened from view. Mr. Barrett stated they might be too restrictive with this and gave an example. He s~- gested stat~outside storage unless adequately screened from public view. Page 33 Mr. Rossi referred to O.P. and questioned if it was the intent to exclude mini-warehouses and Mrs. Huckle pointed out that they weren't excluded. Mr. Rogers pointed out that the Building a~d Site Regulations should be consolidated, the same as previously. ~. Barrett suggested changing the footage to 30' in the front and 30' in the rear under O.P., instead of 40~ and 20, as stated. After discussion, the members agreed. The members discussed the screening of roof units and agreed to strike out: any roof unit shall be screened. Chairman Kelly informed the Board that this M-1 was discussed and was defined to meet a court order. Mr. Barrett stated that the industrial areas should be sepa- rated as two districts. After discussion~ it was agreed to MINUTES PLAh~NING & ZONING BOARD PAGE FOUR APRIL 26, 1 975 change the heading to: Industrial Office Park District Regu- lations a~d Use Provisions on Section 7. Mrs. Huckle added that the table of contents would also have to be changed. (a) should also be taken out under Section ~ in table of contents. ~. Barrett referred to the inclusion~ of uses permitted in C-1, C-2, C-3 and C-4 districts and questioned whether they should remain? He added that he thought they should prohi- bit residential use under M-1. After discussion, it was agreed to cross out any uses permitted under C-1 and C-2. At 10:40 A. M., Chairman Kelly declared a recess. the meeting ~ack in session at 10:51A. M. He called T~e title a~d section A were discussed. ~t was agreed to strike the word classify and state~ M-1 I~dustrial District and leave A remain. Mr. Rossi questioned if this was all light industrial and ~. Barrett replied: yes, but if in the future they have heavy industrial, they could create a M-2 zoning. Mr. Rogers referred to 11 and Mr. Barrett clarified that they wanted to exclude the manufacture of fertilizer. After dis- cussion, it was decided to take out fertilizer and make it ~2 stat~: Fertilizer, excluding manufacturing process. Mr. Rogers referred to 17 and questioned the meaning of metal products, light? Mr. Barrett explained and stated that it excluded casting, smelting and forging operations. It was agreed to leave it as stated. M~s. Huckle pointed out that 2 should be bakery goods. Mrs. Huckle pointed out that 4 should be boar~~e~els with"outdoor- elimi~ated~ ' Mrs. Huckle pointed out that 15 should have parentheses around: -(distribution only). Mr. Rogers referred to 18, Millwork and Lumber, including manufacturing, processing and distribution and pointed out that this would allow a saw mill. This was discussed and it was agreed ~to state: Millwerk and Lumber Yards. Mr. Rogers referred to 20, Textiles, and state~ it wa~ a rather broad manufacturing process. Mr. Barrett gave an example of how he thought it would cover something such as a weaving company. After discussion, it was agreed to state: Textile Weaving and Clothing Manufacturing~ MINUTES ~ANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE F APRIL 26, 1975 Mr. Bushnell pointed out that parentheses had to be added in 21. Mr. Rogers stated he would like to strike tobacco products altogether. Mr. Barrett gave an example of this covering a cigarette distribution plant. After discussion, it was agreed to add: (distribution only). Mr. Rogers stated that under (b) he would like to insert "other" before industrial uses and the members agreed. Mr. Rogers questioned investment type castings and ~. Barrett explained. ~. Rogers referred to 7 and stated it was rather bread. Chairman Kelly explained from his experience and pointed out that it did not allow anything noisy, big or dirty. Mr. Rogers referred to 8 and 11 and stated that they seemed to overlap. He questioned if wareho~e didn't cover this usage? Chairman Kelly gave an example of a moving and stor- age warehouse. Mr. Rogers stated he didn't agree and moving and storage operations were discussed further. It was agreed to state under 8: "moving and storage operations". Mr. Barrett stated he wanted to include truck terminals under allowable uses. It was agreed to insert "Truck Terminals and. Transfer Stations~ between 10 and 11. Mr. Rogers referred to 9 and questioned the screening of open storage yards. After discussion, it was agreed to add: adequately screened from view. M~s. Huckle questioned whether they wanted to allow govern- ment buildings in this section? Mr. Barrett agreed that they should and gave an example. It w~ agreed to insert the same government use from the previous page. Mr. Rogers referred to Pa~:aEraph 3 and stated it should be: Uses Prohibited. He then questioned whether chemical plants shoul~ be added here? Mr. Barrett replied that he thought they had agreed they should not be allowed. M~rs. Huckle agreed and checked the ordinance, but found they weren't included. Mr. Rossi read the prohibitive uses from the Broward County Regulations. After discussion, it was agreed to add chemical plants under uses prohibited. Mrs. Huckle pointed out that the sentence from Page 36 should be included between 2 and 3. Uses Prohibited is 2. MINUTES PLA~UNING & ZONING BO. RD PAGE SIX APRIL 26, 1975 ~!rs. Huck~e referred to 2 and questioned if something should be included about television? After discussion,' it was agreed to state: ~commercial radio, television, and micro- wave transmission stations~. Pagq 36 Mr. Bushnell pointed out that the Building and Site Regula- tions should be consolidated, the same as previously. Mr. Rogers referred to the 10,000 sq. ft. area and no rear setback being given. He stated he thought there should be some restrictions. Mr. Bushnell read the statement from Page 30 regarding this. Mr. Barrett agreed and stated they should have some setback in the front and rear. He added that in order to satisfy the requirements of ~the fire depart- ment and. police department, there were certain easements they could not build upon, but it did not mean there were easements between every lot. He gave an example of having~a 60~m~i- mum lot coverage. _~lr,. Rossi added that the M-1 areas were located next to residential and commercial areas a~d this must be considered. He read the regulations from Martin County for comparison. The members discussed lots abutting residential areas, corner lots, building on rights-of-way, room for parking and pulling off road, screening, areas with railroad spurs, access for fire department, etc. and also consulted the existing code. Chairman Kelly adjourned the meeting at 12:07 P. M. for lun~. Chairman Kelly called the meeting back to order at 1:34 P. M, The members continued discussing requirements for the M-1 area smd decided on the following: Side yard, interior lot - 15' minimum one side* Side yard, corner lot - 15' minimum one side Minimum rear yard - 20' ** *Except where rear of the lot abuts a paved area or street, no side setback shall be required. **Where rear yard abuts a railroad or paved alley, then it shall be 10'. The members discussed again the screening of roof units and exactly what they were. After discussion, it was decided to state: all necessary roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be sound baffled. MINUTES PLANNING-& ZONING BOARD P~_GE SEVEN APRIL 26, 1975 Mr. Rogers referred to the last sentence of paragraph 1 and stated the ~s" should be omitted from the word ~build- ings" and should state: "all applicable building and etc.~ Mrs. Huckle questioned C ~b) and Mr. Barrett explained. The members discussed this paragraph and punctuated and corrected it. ~. Barrett stated that "agency agreement~ should not be capitalized. Mr. Rogers referred to A~$2) under survey and stated it should be: Building Official instead of Department and the members agreed. Mr. Rogers referred to ~'property owners location drawing~ and stated there should be an apostrophe after the ~s" for several owners. Mrs. Huckle referred to the notices and stated that Mrs. Jackson and Mrs. Padgett suggested putting in the require- ments that the City has to send out these notices and the time required for publication. They would like to see that it is mandatory for the City to send these notices out and not jmst a courtesy of the City. She then noted that this w~ a requirement of the State Statutes. Mr. Barrett stated that the City was required to abide by the State Statute; however, in order to clarify this they could state they must abide by State Statute. Mrs. Huckle read the State Statute referring to this. C~hairman Kelly read (c) Administration Enforcement #3 regarding notices~ to be sent. Mr. Barrett pointed out that the mailing was a requirement by the State and he believes it falls on the City to do this, but the developer should provide the list. He read Florida Statute 163.23 referring to public hearings being held. After dis- cussion, it was agreed to state: "~otification sh~ll be given to all persons concerned as defined in Florida Statutes Chapter 163.~' Mr. Rossi pointed out that the State Statute did not state the area to be notified. The members discussed the area to be notified, preparation of the lists, publishing of the legal notice, etc. and consulted other codes. After dis- cussion, it was agreed to leave it as stated and make changes if recommended by the City Council. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE EIGHT APRIL 26, 1975 Mr. Rogers referred to the requirements for re-zoning. He asked if all this information would have to be provided for just re-zoning one lot? He particularly questioned traffic impact study? Mr. Barrett informed him that this was put in here mainly for large developers~and he gave an example. ChairmsmKelly referred back to Mr. Roger's question of whether this applied to a single lot owner? Mr. Barrett re- plied that it did not have to be in a zoning application and the police department could require this by reason of public safety. Mr. Rossi gave an example of having one lot re-zoned and then finding that traffic could not be handled. Mrs. HUc~e stated that they should catch, this on a preliminary review. Mr, Rogers added that a lot of these things are re- quired on larger developments, but not on smaller ones. After further discussiOnm, it was agreed to insert~ "as re- quired by Planning & Zoning Board". .~age 39 Mr. Rogers referred to 5(e) and questioned why they wouldn't want to know the total of the project as well as the density of the project? The members agreed and decided to add: nas well as the total gross and net density of the total project". Mr. Barrett questioned (F) and asked if the members felt it was necessary? Mr. Rossi pointed out that it was required by the ~ounty also. Mr. Bushnell questioned what the soil con- servation district was and Mr. Rossi explained. Mr. B~shnell stated they could eliminate the capitals. Mr. Barrett referred to 176.04 and stated that it became t63 County & Municipal Planning for Future Development. Mrs. Huckle referred to 1 and questioned if it was~ecessary? The members discussed this and agreed to strike 1 and re-num- ber. Mrs. Huckle questioned if Section 5 was still up to date and Mr. Barrett informed her that he had it marked to check with the City Attorney. Page 40 Mr. Rogers referred to Paragraph 4, which is now Paragraph 3, stating the decision will be null and void and he read the complete rules for this. He stated that the way it read to him it indicates there is a plat involved in this instance. Mr. Barrett replied that he thought it was clear. Mr. Rogers referred to someone with one or two lots and Mr. Barrett re- plied that he would already be platted. Mr. Rogers suggested MINUTES ~ANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE NIR~ APRIL 26, 1975 leaving the 12 month limitation stand, but questioned what happened if it wasn't lived up to and if their decision be- came null and void? Mr. Rossi added that zoning must be given to the site plan and when C-2 is given, he doubts whether a plan will be presented. Mr. Barrett advised them that the City stated that the Planning & Zoning Board is a board to the City Council. He then gave aa example. Mr. Rossi pointed out that two things were unsolved: filing a plat and meeting conditions. He referred to previous plans submitted. Mr. Rogers added that an applicant be tied down to what the plans show and also a time ~. Barrett informed him that they only approve m the size of the lots and streets. They approve but when a~applieation for re- ~ it is definite thing. Mr. Rogers re- 'till it must be filed in twelve months an example and read this that this.paragraph only or it is voided. paragraph. Mr. applied to added wo~ could plied that Cer2ain The went map. Mr. Rogers a complete impasse. Mr. the City Attorney would Chairman Kelly an down and what ,ppened. whether this applied to limit, filin, Ifa plat, Mr. Rossi gave an how a developer how they Mr. Barrett re- re-zoning. nOW. He added he reviewed the they were at were wrong, and it could be changed. of how one case wasn't tied members further or just re- the time it was agreed to insert two commas, one approved and one after plat. Mrs. Huckle referred to the word "identical~ in Paragraph 4 an~ clarified her concern. Mr. Barrett referred to au appli- cation for re-zoning and if suggestions were made by the Board, that this was the intent of this. Actually, they wanted a preliminary and final review.~ M. rs. Huckle stated that she still didn't l~e it referring to an identical application. After.discussion, it was agreed to state: "before the application can be refiled". Mr. Rogers added they should state: "twelve month limit on re-applying to tie in with reviewing the zoning map" and the members agreed. Page Chairman Kelly questioned if they were qualified to make rules and regulations for the Board of Adjustment and Mr. Barrett informed him that he would go over this section with the City Attorney. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TEN APR~ 26, 1975 Mr. Rogers referred to the proper forms ~nd questioned if they should state where they were available? Mr. Barrett replied that in all events, they must file with the City Clerk. Chairman Kelly stated that "resolution or'~ should be striken out in the second paragraph. ~s. Huckle referred to the State Statutes stating the Board of Adjustment shall confer with the Planning & Zoning Board in case of special exceptions and she suggested coming back and concentrating on this after adoption and then making any amendments. pag. e 44~ Mr. Barrett read Paragraph 3~in reference to the Board con- sisting of five members at all times. The guideline states there shall be five members on the Board at all times and if one member is absent, an alternate shall be appointed. It also states there shall be a vote of four members either for or against. He explained how the Board operated. Ne advised that four wotes are needed and this will be written according to notes from the City Attorney and the members agreed. F~. Barrett referred to Paragraph 2 ~ud stated it should read ~Chairman of the Boar~~ and not his representative, etcl and the Building Official or his representative shall act as advise~s~, He added that this would ~e taken care of during his discussion with the City Attorney. Mrs~ Huckle questioned if anyone could come in immediately after the zoning was adopted and ask for a re-zoning? Mr. Barrett explained the process of approving the map and regu- lations. Page 49~ Mr. Barrett referred to Supplemental Regulations and stated they must consider scree~ enclosures. Chairman Kelly pointed out that F was a rather vague statement. Mr. Barrett contin- ued that he had talked to many individuals about this and questions if they feel it is a fair regulation. With a 25' setback, you can out a pool in the 25', but cannot install a screen enclosure.~ It has always been considered that a screen enclosure served the same purpose to enclose a swim- ming pool, but only a fence could go on a property line. He gave an example of maximum sized lots in the area and how a pool would fit in. Chairman Kelly remarked that he didn't think it was fair. Mr. Barrett added that a screen enclosure means screen for the walls and roof. M~. Rossi added that MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD RAGE ELEVEN ~PRIL 26, 1975 neighbor~g cities all have different requirements for this. .Mr. Barrett gave an example of how the County allowed a 10% factor to apply setbacks. Mr. Rossi asked what the require- ment was for a pool and Mr. Barrett informed him it had to be at least 8' from the~property line. Mr. Bushnell stated he thought it was a violation to the person who did not want a pool, but would like a screened porch, Mro Barrett replied that a screened porch wouldn't be as large and wouldn,t encom- pass such a vast area. Mr. Rossi pointed out that they were making a distinction between porch and screen enclosure. Mro Rogersstated he didn't think a screen enclosure should be any closer than 10' to the rear property line. He gave an example with two screen enclosures with only 16' Between and how it looked with hedEes or fences betwee~ that area. ~o B~sh~ell sitated co~ flow of light, air, etc~, he still didn't screen or Solid roof. roof it to be sto~ ~t and air. roof with alu~n~m ~ 4(b) where a bui~ rear ~roDe~ty Mr to acc b~ildings. ~h~. limit~ Mr. an ac( was corner of the lo' It is clearance for the util~ is not joined to the there was limi~ added that setback sh apply to how access A garage ~lity accessory Aft, state for accessory "maintain side yard setbac from rear property line, etc. whether it had a Mr. Barrett pointed out that a solid ~ as a permanent room and also pointed out that a screen I Section allowed ~ 6'3'from the stated that this referred stated that they still stated that he thought ing sitting in one e and gives An building ~ure. Mr. out ~ accessory 's. He ~tever ~ decide for the rear Mr. Barr~ examples of ~sirable ~o~ alleys, etc. should be co~sidered under ~cussion, it was agreed to s and screen enclosures: ~irements and at least 8' M~. Rogers stated he thought they should define a screen enclosure as having a screen roof. After discussion, it was agreed to state: ~All screen enclosures (screen walls a~d screen roof) shall comply with side yard setback re- quirements. No screen enclosure shall be constructed closer than 8' from the rear property line and no screen enclosure shall be constructed i~ front of the building line.~ Mr. Rogers referred to above-ground pools and they agreed to leave it as stated and they must comply with building set- backs. MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING BOARD PAGE TWELVE APRIL 26, 1975 Mr. Barrett referred to L, Marine Facilities, and stated he would like to make this within one year of passing of this code instead of within six months. Chairman Kelly referred to M and questioned if they needed definitions for wet or dry storage? Mr. Barrett advised them to strike out: Boat Yard and dry storage has been defined. This page was noted as being standard. Page 56 Mr. Barrett informed them that this page was standard, but the City Attorney would make any necessary changes. Chairman Kelly announced they had now completed all 56 pages of the Zoning Regulations for the City of Boynton Beach. Mr. Rogers asked if a meeting was scheduled to ma.ke presentation of this to the City Council. Chairman Kelly informed him that the City Council would read the ordinance on May ~ and scheduled public hearings for the north side on May 13 and the south side on May 14. He announced that the next regular meeting of this Board was scheduled for May 13, but they must meet before May 8. They discussed the work the Building De- partment had yet to do to prepare the regulations for preSenta- tion and decided to schedule a tentative special meeting for Thursday, May 1 at 7:30 P. M. Chairman Kelly adjourned the meeting at 4:44 P. M.